New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-04-12
THE APPEAL FOR IMMUNITY.
A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE COVER

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE GOVERN
MENT AND "FIRsT BATCH" PEOPLE
IBy TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON, April 11.-Mr French, Assist
Secretary of the Treasury completed his report In
the matter the immunity claimed for the first batch OF
the Chicago Whisky Ring to-day The report
will be presented to Secretary Sherman To-
morrow. The latter will not act upon 1t until the
return OF Charles Reed, attorney for several OF
those Interested from Chicago, which will be In four or
five days. Mr.. Reed has been permitted to examine MI
Frencs opinion but under the most solemn pledges not
TO disclose of its contents TO any one except
his cents there good reason to believe that the
nature and contents the report and the purpor OF
Mr. Reeds visit to Chicago in substance as below H.
dcatcd
The case that of the first batch 10 which immunity
granted upon condition OF turning States evidence
That agreement reduced TO writing. 1t promises IN
terms entire criminal immunity for the persons named
but does not specify that the persons any OF them
shall have civil immunity. 1t is claimed, however, that
the agreement held out the hope to the detehdahIs
that if they testified Faithfully and acted In good
faith the Government would be lenient with them For
it was said that thus acting they would become tue
friends Of the Government and the Government might
release them altogether The Attorney-Genera OF the
United States, DistrictAttOrney Bangs. the Commits
siOner OF Internal Revenue, ana it s said secretary MOT
nil recommended that the Of these persons should
be settled IN accordance with the terms OF the agree
ment The difficulty which Assistant secretary rlenoh
has found has been to determine what the agreement
was The distillers claim that it means complete civil
as well as criminal immunity aud release OF the Juds-
ments already found against them.
Mr.. French has to the conclusion and so reports
to Secretary Sherman, that there is nothing III inc
papers on file in the department, or IN the records OF
the case as presented TO him by the attorney Tor those
claiming immunity, to show that civil immunity was
granted On the contrary, Mr French will represent to
| Of thn Trousu
Treasury aairmauycly show that civil immunity was
not granted In support OF this view he is understood
20 refer II the testimony OF Buford wilson, supervisor
Matthews and the letter of eXSecretary Bislow, rea-
tive to immunity Mr.. Brstows position on the imnl-
nitvoueston is fully outlined 10 tho following letter:
WAsHNGToN, d.. c., Oct. IL, 1872
10 BiIroGD WILSON, 81 Louis, no.:
n Il no, easy at tits distance 10 say what, II anything,
should be conceded by the Government III particular
ses i'm order TO reap greater benefit In others The Dis
ttOneI and associates bols on the erouhE sh -
gycsons. would cay generally however, that unless
important ends ~ be gained IA otner cases 1
party. Tie question in hand does not relate
alone to amount of money Involved in these ar'lc,
lar eases but affects the integrity Of the revenue, and
complete IN these prosecutions would DC 81 great
LIN. "a tnc Government hereafter Therefore would
saw 10 parties who oo TO surrender aud ask terms that
t,c as tic, admit 10 be rue make their statement to
fo court throw themselves It's clemency. and submit
themselves such punishment as the court may pro-
n"mnrc / would make no agreement IN advance for
sion OF Judgment nor would ask the court after
Il
,Iras a. gutv To SUSPEND sentence IN any case unless
mon hearing the statement OF the party III open court IL
spoud be deemed proper him witness against
a grraipr offender Tho conviction and punishment OF
nr and guilty officials is ~ the first import nee, ana
All roplr means tins end should he used Ihe AttOr-
nry General and Commissioner Of Internal Revenue con-
d. H. oh9AO"' "'''''"iJ'
Mr. Wilson testified very clearly that the immunity
was necessary to break up the Rns but he is under
od TO have claimed then that the agreement did
not cover civil immunity.
Attorney Charles Reed will leave for Chicago to-mor-
row. Tire purpose OF his visit, although he refuses any
information about it, is to obtain any proof that there
NAV be in Chicago to show that the agree
mept included civil immunity. Tbs proof II 1t
exits must be in the possession OF Ds;ricAttorney
Bapgs or OF the special counsel 1t Is certain that secre
tary sherman has informed Nc Reed that he would
abb te in good faith by whatever agreement the Govern
ment had made with these people. Assistant Secretary
French is understood to maintain that the agreement
does not include civil immunity. Mr. Reed insists that
IL does The issue turns upon that question OF fact
n Mr. Reed can prove to the satisfaction OF the secre
tary OF the Treasury that the agreement ala Include
civil immunity, the Treasury Department Will doubtless
abide by the agreement If this cannot be proved there
car also be no doubt that the decision OF Secretary sher
man ms to first batch Will be as severe as that alu
down in his letter published Last week with regard TO the
bankrupt gaugcr