, 1877-05-06
And No Agreement Granting
Civil Immunity Was
Ever Made.
The Presidents Proclama-
ton Converting Con-
qress Oct. Is.
Some of the Reasons Which
Brought About the Post
ponement.
The Texas Delegation Divided on the
Texas Pacific Scheme.


TEE FIRST BATCH.
AN UEwELCoME KSELL FOR TIE BoNDsMKN-
Special Dispatch to 1ne Tribune
WASHINGTON, D. C., May 5.-Sccretary s. Sher-
man has decided the case Of Roelle, Junkcr &
Co., and the entire first batch, adversely to their
application for civil immunity, and has ap-
proved the report of Assistant Secretary French,
the conclusions OF which are: First, that no
officer of the Government had any legal author
tt to make an agreement for civil immunity, as
alleged; second, that no such agreement In fact
was made; and, third, that the application for
compromise should be refused.
The report of Assistant-Sccrctary French,
which is IN elaborate document Of thirty legal
CAP pages, is the argument upon which Secretary
Sherman's order is based and Is the paper
which Charles Reed, counsel for the first batch,
made his last argument to coutroyert. The
substantial points Of French's opinion arc, that
a compromise could only be made under Sec.
3,469, Revised Statutes, By proposition OF the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, District
Attorney, and Solicitor OF the Treasury. The
Solicitor of the Treasury makes no express
recommendation, and leaves the subject vague.
The Solicitor OF Internal Revenue makes posi-
tive recommendations
a
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue alone
approves of compromise. This was the state
OF the case Feb. q, 1877. On Feb. Is. 1877,
District-Attorney Bangs notified the Conmis-
sioner OF Internal Revenue that judgment In
the case had been reopencd. Judge French
finds it difficult to understand what object
Judge Bangs could have had, under the circum-
stances, in opening the case. The reopen1ng
OF these judgments gave the first batch
AN EXTRAORDINARY ADVANTAGE,
since, as the case stood before, they were not,
under the statutes, capable OF being com
promiscd,-as the Treasury has no Jurisdiction
over them. The rcopening of the judgments
bv United States officer placed these persons
in a technically legal position to apply for
compromise. Without this change OF the
record compromise would have been impossi-
bic. Under Sec. 3,o229, the point is made, first,
that no officers had authority to make the al
lcrcd agreement. The UistrictcAttoruey and
special counsel could
BAsIrEsTLr HAVE NO AUTHORITY
to make such agreement for clyl immunity.
They had no power to make release OF such
taxes, nor could they bind tue Government to
auy such agreement No such agreement was
made. It is not pretended that there is. any
written agreement as set forth verbatim ap-
parently ir the brief OF the attorneys and in
the record Of the Court, although District
Attorney Bangs, in his letter to the
Attorney General, says that he Was un-
The claim that this agreement was made under
the authority of the then Secretary Of the
Treasury, Bristow, Is not sustained. Inc Ger
titicatc Of Judge Bangs Mt the foot Of this agree
mcnt shows clearly tha: civil Immunity was not
understood By It. Vo1utninous references arc
then made to the testimony gi;en BY Judge
Bangs, Supervisor Matthews, and Bluford VII
son before the Whisky Investigating Commit
tee, to show that cvil immunity
WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED.
Conspicuous among these references Is the
statement Of Judge Bangs that his only
knowledge about the agreement was OBJ
taincd from Supervisor Matthews, VINO
claimed to bring. it from Bristow. 1T
the court record OF the pretended agreement"
This sentence goes to show that Judge Bangs
did not then expect that that a{gIceuaeu: tn
cludcd civil immunity.
In this connection the hope was held out
Department would be lcnient With them;
Tor it Was said that By thus actinIg
they would become frlcnts OF the Government,
and the Government might release them alto TO-
Government reserved the right, in case
it chose to exercise it, to proceed
to sale in case OF condemnation. It appears here
plainly that this Government reserved It's r1Ght
to proceed to sales tn the cases OF conucmha-
tiop, or did not in fact grant civil immunity.
Tie correspondence between Tuition and BITS
tow. IN which the former protests against grant
ing civil immunity, Judge French claims shows
that Bristow had granted no such lmmunltS,
and insisted that he authorized
NO SUCH ANRASGEAEST.
Bluford Wilson testified that Secretary BITS
tow distinctly stated to Supervisor Matthews
before he went to Bangs, and when III washing
ton that be entered into no such arrangement,
and would make no sucE compromise WITH ac-
cuscd persons.
The following telegram from Solicitor Wilson
II quoted as proof OF the rejection OF the prop
ositions for civil immunity: "Proposals re,
jccted. without qualification, aud unconditional
surrender insisted upon."
In another letter Solicitor Wilson seid: "You
seem to forget that these very men, the first
batch, have agreed to surrender unconuitional-
" to the Government the vast seizures OF prop
The decision of Secretary Sherman is very
broad and sweeping, aud seems to cover the Gu
tire whisky cases as regards the question OF I'M
munity.
Charles Reed. attorney for the first batch,
who left for New York this morning, VII r.
turn the first OF the week aud will Immediately
anncal the case to the Attorney and
the President. In view Of Secretary Sherman's
positive decision, it will require very c1traord-
uarr cXcrtsOu to reverse his ucclslo!t4 aua " ee
cure the suspension Of civil prosecutions.
TIE DECISION.
10 the TesteTn Associated PTeSs
WASHINGTON, u. e., May y5.-Following is the
decision of the Secretary Of the Treasury on the
nroposition, OF Anton Junker, Joseph Koe!le,
anal j, P. KissingeE, proprietors OF tue Union
Conner Distilling Company, First District OF
Illinois, to compromise by payment OF sloo aud
costs the claims Of the United States AGAINST
them for fines, penalties, fortetures, ana Likes,
amounting III al to s59' $3.50. The Secretary
writes:
I have carefully examined this psopos1ilon 'of
cnmnron,;se. md have considered the brief OF
Charlcs H. Reed. Esq, attorney for proponents,
in objection to the opinion OF Assistant Secretary
French OF this Department. and now appiusc uls
opinipn and decline the proposed compromise
The vcrbaI agreement referred TO, so lar as II Is
established bY proof, h0s been fully executed on
the mart OF the Government by the release OF pro.
noncnts from Imprisonment for crimes commtteo
under the Revenue laws. It did not undertake 10,
and could not under the law. extend 10 INC feIcase
OF proponents for due or forfctuTcs 1ncarteu
under The Internal Revenue laws. 1t does not
appcar that any such release from peCuntafy no~
btlity was proposed to any officer OF the Govern
rncnt having authority TO make compromise.
Both the Secretary and Solicitor OF the ifeasu1y
deny any suea agreement, anu noue .Fas repo1tea
to th1s Department Evidence Of this ora! A.
raugemept with IN attorney is 50 rague and unsat-
isfactorr that the executive officer of the Govern:
ment would not be justified in acting upon It, and
fhe Court has already given it full effect In DIS"
charriug proponents from imprisonment The
dehfe and other DeCuutEfY