, 1877-11-20
.lhe Cases OF the Second Batch
on Trial.
co1sen, Eastman, and Others Testify
Regarding That Promised
Immunity.
what IL Was 10 Dr., md tho WAY They
Camc 10 Got II.
f,o1 Matthew'S Denies that lie Said He Was
Bristow'z Right Bower.

,ran.t Euc1le, ,tuukcr II Co., and Ford, Oliscr
/, f,. I'll lt,r " SECOND batcfl,h was begun yes
,nr,,ay rcforc Judge Hlo.lgctt after tnany de-
lar. and 1wsip siponcElcNts. Tic following nro the
nan,rs uf the Jurors selected: u. F. Warren,
I,IIon: John. W. Rogers, Downcr's t}rovc; A.
!, Kelley. Livingstone County; ]. Royce, VIII
f,unty: c. l.. Merritt, 1877 South Clark street;
.1o,,n Mulrny. Hyde park; W. ". 1Sakcr. Chlca-
90: +. u, Waterman, Ottawa; Charles Woolcit,
Chicago; j. Y. Raean, Fremont; Samuel ilar-
rraycs Camplon; Il. Cassidy, Woodstock.
Alter they wero finally lsnpanclcl,
JUDGE HANGS
sadrcs.c1 lheln on Lcl,alf Of the Government.
After giving somewhat extended account or
The history Of the Whisky Ring AMI of tho convic-
,ouof some ofthc crooked whisky men, he stated
ha. the question was whether partial or entire
immunity had bccu granted to tho "scconl
,atch.n He would oblcct to tho introduction
# a,,y contract which had been made With lilly
our except tic Government attorneys, or Which
md not been sanctioned by Tic Government
Attorney. AT Iio claimed tho Government lad
seen extremely liberal, hal always
n1,isd out It's agreements, and
Ind granted immunity rs IL promised
wauss criminal prosecutions. lie would show
Ills from a,liJaylts Of Sidney Smith and
Leonard SWEET. II was seen after the wnr on
,,,e Itettllers began that convictions coull
lot be had without the Testimony Of somc Of
,,,c thieves, and some OF them wcre allowed 10
nsoucal" OF, condition Of Obtaining Immunity
ro,,, criminal suits. THIS was NIL tho Govcrn-
rent had promised, aud this had been given.
col. JugssEN
followed III bcfalf of the defendants lie
charged that tho question ut Issue ras whether
lhu Ooyrrnmcpt would keep It's contract or
not. lie then revised tl.g whisky Eases.
md claimed ,,, ,hnt xIeo tho @ agtee"s,t vtars
.utire immunitynn condition Of thcir squcalng.
it, snIl he should be able To prove tis not only
By tIholscn g. Russell, but by Sidney sta'tll
Ind Leonard 8wctt,-men wloec word was 10
Iomc other witness, whose mime was not given,
who would testify TINT Judge bangs Ind aKrccl
IL this. Mr. Jncsscn tl!cn went tor Judge
hangs accusing him nf breaking ILLS proshtscs,
prosecution after he had AGREED to Eiyc IN.
nunty, The opening arguments occupied all
the morning, atAl at their conclusion recess
was taken until y. III.
On Ecsu.nilIg Mt 9o'elock, .1udgo bangs offered
IL cylIente ttg following
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION
Of defendants, tnade wien tho Judgments wcre
opened:
he,sS ,tne'eKk N S;eps psas; ess AtSs a tSn
property III rnfd causea t:ils' harrce uf sltisky.
ihnt they Will n,nkO an immediate attempt to havo
ta!d causes co,npromirca and nsttlsd ny tlo ne s.
,a,l Departments refuse Or decline t. ecttto anA @
e ,sa sa% ns tse sssao. s;a e 'ass T III
Tirlnal caute. of netion Or liabilities Of tAc said
slulants: but that the trial Ut said ca'ses. tho
.atI cnir,anta viii admit tho original causes Of
icfcnpe or tctrurca except The ngrcomtnt nude
wasn the ss oe,,e sn 1ss t'ns 9sa
government. Said cases nrc to be tried or dis:
soscd 1t during tho next term OF sal,l coar.. and
Au,, n ihT7 Attorney fur Cl4u,apts.
(,ol. .jucssru callcu on tho DstrIct-Attusncy
1or
TIE onlolNAL DISPATCH
sent hy Secretury Brjstvw to Supervisor Tut.
I'm. wIllo tho latter was III Chicago, Jan.
ID. iSiG.
Judge Bangs said he was not = custodian OF
Mig dispatch: ,., n,.
sofncy kai Decu served with notice SATURDAY,
m nrtn.l,rc tlle orf.tnnI Unyj1M. failed to do
10. hu was now Obliged to utIcr i COPY thereof,
With lo yus prtxgctlIng to reatl, wien Judge
I. liz JMig: ren,orked tt,ut nc did not set
lhut The dispatch wus material. lie further
1tatrd tLut Lin Impression waa very
strong that tic present Inquiry musl
hu rnninr,l to whatever nrrec1ncpt VIVA made
with tho Diatrict. Attorney md those I'd
viii i'jIu' lin md outsitie aSrecmcnts could MT b.
admissible.
{'f ,l1,peeRh funG1n A bffHf O1r0 fOr the Hdtnk9
s, - ~, 'sia,,as ,a' ~ "vtic"r MT tc S:n,r
wns mt .wcrvr,I fr"n, hIs nusitinn. Al fnrnish
"I rus Tv,rI,nr r,,,'nrtrr a. his own rcn,,ra
~ Mr nne'i Il rna,;. m f.,inw.: '' '~>'A~'
- '. "seo' ~ y, 10 ~, ,.ro :, r,,
MAsSaToS. y. -. san -. ih'o;Tth. 1ti,aa III ~
~, o 1IHt sy ~ dt1.etn nv ar1an,rmentw wh in
dtctsd nartIes. No We sciima 10 ntsIfcrs viii On,
thut has bc,, antorcl into ty The District. hturps
with tle uppfovai os liz associa.es sn,l tho loea
1sssnas YssF, Having ss"aaenes IN tas,. judg
ss s% H., sy x ae w.' ""
....a ~ H. ha'SEo~'
WILLIAM q. GoLsEN
was called by tho defense. lie came up trcst
and sLniltng, as OF old. One OF the first qslcs
lions uske1 hin. wus whether shero was an
UFeclne11t between him and lovernmcnt couil
sul Luz immunity on con.iition tliat h9 Wou''
turn stutS's rvtdsnco III tto Thtsky business.
Judge HAE.s uIlectcu u thc lcfula "tdoEeFf'
munt COUNSEL" There might hayc bec. agree
1'!cnts with government utlatcfs. but doverti
''ent counsel WIS another thing.
. Col. !ucsecn sail thu testimony would enov
that a!l agreements wcFo ratified by the uos
ernment counsel.
Judge nlWiKete took occasion to further IL