{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-10:munn-trial",
  "slug": "munn-trial",
  "title": "Address to the Jury in the Munn Trial",
  "subtitle": "The United States vs. Daniel W. Munn — Chicago whiskey conspiracy, 1876.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's jury argument in the Chicago 'whiskey conspiracy' trial — a defense of a Deputy Supervisor of Internal Revenue charged under Section 5440 of the Revised Statutes.",
  "year": 1876,
  "volume": 10,
  "category": "Legal",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/munn-trial/",
  "wordCount": 10843,
  "body": "• The United States vs. Daniel W. Munn, Deputy Supervisor of\n    Internal Revenue, who was indicted under Section 5440 of the\n    Revised Statutes of the United States.\n    There was an unusual rush to obtain admission to the United\n    States District Courtroom yesterday to listen to the closing\n    arguments of counsel in the Munn whiskey conspiracy trial\n    which has attracted so much attention during the past ten\n    days. The stalwart deputy who guards the entrance to this\n    judicial precinct was compelled to employ his entire\n    strength and power of persuasion to keep the eager, anxious\n    crowd from trespassing on the convenience and dignity of the\n    court. About ten o'clock the Court took the bench, and Col.\n    Ingersoll walked into the room, took off a broad-brimmed\n    felt hat, which gives the barrister, while he has it on,\n    somewhat the appearance of a full-grown, well-developed\n    Quaker in good standing in the society to which he belongs.\n    When he has the hat removed, however, the counsellor's\n    appearance undergoes a marked change. He then looks like the\n    crop-haired follower of the house of Montague in the\n    Shakespearean play. He sat down on a crazy old chair which\n    threatened every moment to break down beneath his weight,\n    and listened to the remarks of Judge Doolittle for the\n    remainder of the morning, until it came his time to talk.\n    Colonel Ingersoll never troubles himself to take notes of\n    anything. What he cannot recollect he does not have any use\n    for.\n    Judge Doolittle occupied the morning session until the time\n    for adjournment at one o'clock, with a review of the case on\n    the side of the defence. He was followed by Mr. Ingersoll in\n    the afternoon.\n    At two o' clock the court-room was more crowded than before,\n    and at that hour Mr. Ingersoll appeared in the forum and\n    delivered his speech in behalf of the defendant.—The Times,\n    Chicago, Ills., May 23, 1876.\n\nIF the Court please and the gentlemen of the jury: Out of an abundance\nof caution and, as it were, an extravagance of prudence, I propose to\nmake a few remarks to you in this case. The evidence has been gone over\nby my associates, and arguments have been submitted to you which, in\nmy judgment, are perfectly convincing as far as the innocence of this\ndefendant is concerned. I am aware, however, that there is a prejudice\nagainst a case of this character. I am aware that there is a prejudice\nagainst any man engaged in the manufacture of alcohol. I know there is\na prejudice against a case of this kind; and there is a very good reason\nfor it. I believe to a certain degree with the district attorney in this\ncase, who has said that every man who makes whiskey is demoralized. I\nbelieve, gentlemen, to a certain degree, it demoralizes those who make\nit, those who sell it, and those who drink it. I believe from the time\nit issues from the coiled and poisonous worm of the distillery, until it\nempties into the hell of crime, dishonor, and death, that it demoralizes\neverybody that touches it. I do not believe anybody can contemplate the\nsubject without becoming prejudiced against this liquid crime. All we\nhave to do, gentlemen, is to think of the wrecks upon either bank of the\nstream of death—of the suicides, of the insanity, of the poverty, of\nthe ignorance, of the distress, of the little children tugging at the\nfaded dresses of weeping and despairing wives, asking for bread; of the\nmen of genius it has wrecked; the millions struggling with imaginary\nserpents produced by this devilish thing. And when you think of the\njails, of the almshouses, of the asylums, of the prisons, of the\nscaffolds upon either bank—I do not wonder that every thoughtful man is\nprejudiced against the damned stuff called alcohol. And I know that we,\nto a certain degree, have to fight that prejudice in this case; and so I\nsay, for this reason among others, I deem it proper that I should submit\nto you, gentlemen, the ideas that occur to my mind upon this subject.\n\nIt may be proper for me to say here that I thank you, one and all, for\nthe patience you have shown during this trial. You have patiently heard\nthis testimony; you have patiently given your attention, I believe, to\nevery word that has fallen from the lips of these witnesses, and for one\nI am grateful to you for it.\n\nNow, gentlemen, understanding that there is this prejudice, knowing at\nthe time the case commenced that it existed, I asked each one of you\nif there was any prejudice in your minds which in your judgment would\nprevent your giving a fair and candid verdict in this case, and you all,\nhonestly, I know, replied that there was not. The district attorney,\nJudge Bangs, stated to you in the opening of this case, for the purpose\nof preparing your minds for the examination of this testimony, that you\nmust, first of all, divest your minds of sympathy. I do not say that,\ngentlemen, neither would I say it were I the attorney of the Government\nof the United States, but I do say this: Divest yourselves of prejudice\nif you have it, but do not, gentlemen, divest yourselves of sympathy.\nWhat is the great distinguishing characteristic of man? What is it that\ndistinguishes you and me from the lower animals—from the beasts? More,\nI say, than anything else, human sympathy—human sympathy. Were it not\nfor sympathy, gentlemen, the idea of justice never would have entered\nthe human brain. This thing called sympathy is the mother of justice,\nand although justice has been painted blind, never has she been\nrepresented as heartless until so represented by the district attorney\nin this case. I tell you there is no more sacred, no more holy, and\nno purer thing than what you and I call sympathy; and the man who is\nunsympathetic is not a man. Gentlemen, the white breast of the lily is\nfilthy as compared to the human heart perfumed with love and sympathy. I\ndo not want you to divest yourselves of sympathy, neither do I want\nyou to try the case entirely upon sympathy, but I want you sympathetic\nenough to put yourselves honestly in the place of this defendant. Now,\ngentlemen, as a matter of fact, this case resolves itself into simply\none point; all the rest is nothing; all the rest is the merest fog that\ncan be brushed from the mind with a wave of the hand, and it is all\nresolved down to simply one point, and that is: Is Jacob Rehin worthy of\ncredit? Has Jacob Rehm told against this defendant a true story?\n\nNow, that is all there is in this case. The other points that they\nraise, and which I shall allude to before I get through, are valuable\nonly as they cast a certain amount of suspicion upon the defendant, but\nthe real point is, and the attorneys for the Government know it, Is Mr.\nJacob Rehm's story worthy of credit? Did he tell the truth? Judge Bangs\nfelt that was the only question, and for that reason, in advance, he\ndefended the reputation of Jacob Rehm for truth and veracity; and he\nmade to the jury this remarkable statement: \"The reputation of Jacob\nRehm for truth and veracity is good. It spreads all over the city of\nChicago like sunlight.\" That was the statement made by the district\nattorney of the United States. I do not believe that he would swear to\nthat part of his speech. It was an insult to every person on this jury.\nIt was an insult to this court; it was an insult to the intelligence of\nevery bystander, that the reputation of Jacob Rehm spread like sunlight\nall over the city of Chicago! My God! what kind of sunlight do you mean?\nThink of it!\n\nNow, then, gentlemen, he knew it was necessary to defend the character\nof Mr. Rehm; he knew it was necessary to defend that statement. He knew\nthat the testimony of Mr. Rehm was the only nail upon which the jury\ncould possibly hang a verdict of guilty in this case.\n\nAnd now I propose to examine a little the testimony of Mr. Jacob Rehm. I\nbelieve it was stated by Judge Bangs that one of the best tests of truth\nwas that a lie was at war with all the facts in the universe, and that\nevery fact standing, as it were, on guard, was a member of the police of\nthe universe to arrest all lies.\n\nLet me state another truth. Every fact in the universe will fit every\nother fact in the universe. A lie never did, never will, fit anything\nbut another lie made to fit it. Never, never! A lie is unnatural. A lie,\nin the nature of things, is a monstrosity. A lie is no part of the great\ncircle, including the universe within its grasp, and consequently, as I\nsaid before, will fit nothing except another lie. Now, then, to examine\nthe testimony of a witness, you examine into its naturalness, into its\nprobability, because you expect another man to act something as you\nwould under the same circumstances. We have no other way to judge other\npeople except by our own experience and an authenticated record of the\nexperience of others, consequently, when a man is telling a story, you\nhave to apply to it the test of your own experience, and as I say the\nrecorded tests of other honest men.\n\nNow, let us suppose just for a moment that the testimony of Mr.\nJacob Rehm is true. Let us suppose it. It has been stated to you, and\nadmirably stated, by Judge Doolittle,—admirably stated,—that it was\nthe height of absurdity to suppose that a man would do as he did for\nnothing. But let me put it in another light somewhat. According to\nthe testimony of Mr. Jacob Rehm, he first tried to stop this stealing.\nNobody offered him any money to stop it, but he simply went to the\ncollector, Irwin, and said they were stealing, and that it must be\nstopped; and thereupon Collector Irwin changed the gaugers for the\npurpose of stopping the stealing. A few days thereafter, somebody came\nto him and wanted the stealing to commence, and he told them they would\nhave to pay for it, and the amount they would have to pay for it, and\nhe then went to Collector Irwin, whom he supposed at that time to be\na perfectly honest and upright man, and told him, in short, that they\nwanted to steal, and would give five hundred dollars a month. Irwin\nsaid, \"Go ahead.\"\n\nHe admits that they did steal. He admits that they made a bargain with\nhim. He admits that that happened, and he assigned all these gaugers and\nstore-keepers. He admits that he did that for two years. He admits that\nhe received at least one hundred and twenty thousand dollars of this\nmoney. He admits that in order to carry out this scheme he knew that\nevery distiller would have to sign a lie every time he made a report to\nthe Government. He admits that he knew every gauger would have to swear\nto a lie at the end of every month in his report of the transactions of\neach day. He admits that every store-keeper would be guilty of perjury\nevery time he made a report. He admits that he knew that the thing that\nhe was committing for two years was a daily penitentiary offence. He\nadmits that he put himself in the power of all these gaugers and all\nthese store-keepers, and all these distillers and rectifiers,—put it\nin their power to have him arrested for a penitentiary offence at any\nmoment during the whole two years, and yet he tells you that he did this\nabsolutely for nothing! He tells you every cent he received he divided\nand paid over; that he never kept a solitary dollar, except it may be\nfor a box of cigars. I want the attorney for the Government to tell this\njury that he believes that story. And if he does tell you so, gentlemen,\nI will give you notice now that you need not believe any other word Mr.\nAyer says—if he says he believes that.\n\nNow, then, what more? He knew that all these men were committing these\npenitentiary offences, and that he was putting himself in the power of\nall these men; and what was his motive? What, gentlemen, was his object?\n\nIt is impossible for me to imagine. If he got no money, if he made\nnothing out of this transaction, it is impossible for me to imagine\nwhy he embarked in such a course of crime. Why then did he say to\nyou, gentlemen, that he paid all this money over? It was to build up a\nreputation with you. It was to make you think that whereas he paid this\nall over, that whereas he did all this business simply to accommodate\nhis friends, that he was worthy of credit in his statement of this case.\nHe told you that he did not keep a dollar simply to make a reputation\nwith you. What did he want a reputation with you for? So that he would\nbe believed. And what did he want to be believed for? So that he could\nsend Munn to the penitentiary and, as the price of Munn's incarceration,\nget his own liberty. That is the reason he swore it, and there is no\nother reason in the world. Is it probable a man would commit all these\ncrimes for nothing? Is it possible that he would hire and bribe other\nmen to commit these crimes for nothing? I ask you; I ask your common\nsense; I appeal to your brains: Is it probable that he would do all that\nabsolutely for nothing? Is it probable he would lay himself liable to\nthe penitentiary every hour in the day for two years for nothing? There\nis and can be but one answer to such a question as that. Why, gentlemen,\nif his statement is true that he did all this for nothing, he is the\nmost disinterested villain, the most self-sacrificing and self-denying\nthief of which the history of the world gives any record. Is it\npossible?\n\nIs it possible, I say, that a man would make himself the sewer of all\nthe official rot in this city, in which was deposited the excrement of\nfrauds? Is it possible he would turn himself into a scavenger cart into\nwhich should be thrown all the moral offal of the city of Chicago for\nnothing? Whoever answers that question in the affirmative is, in my\njudgment, an idiot. Nobody can. Nobody has a mind so constructed that it\ncan lodge an affirmative answer to that question within its brain.\n\nWhat next? He tells you that Munn was in this plot; and that he, Mr.\nRehm, at the same time was selling protection to these distillers. No\ndistillers—and you know it—would have given him ten dollars a barrel\nunless they expected protection. He then was engaged in the sale of\nprotection, was he not? Did you ever know of a vender crying down his\nown wares? Did you ever hear of a merchant crying down the quality\nof the cloth he wished to sell? Did you ever hear of a grocery man\nendeavoring to cry down that which he wished you to buy?\n\nJacob Rehm was selling protection at ten dollars a barrel, and sometimes\nasking twelve dollars and fifty cents. Was it not natural for him to\nendeavor to convince distillers that he had plenty of protection to\nsell? Was it not natural for him to make the distillers believe, \"If\nyou will give me ten dollars a barrel you will have perfect protection\"?\nWould it be natural for him to say, \"I will protect you for ten dollars\na barrel, and yet I have none of the officers in my pay\"? They would\nsay, \"What kind of protection have you got, sir?\" Would it not be\nnatural for him to make out his protection as good as he possibly could?\nWould it not be natural for him to tell you, \"I have got all these\nofficers on my side, from the lowest gauger to the gentleman\nwho presides over the internal revenue department at the city of\nWashington\"? The more protection he had the more money he could get,\nand consequently it would not be natural for him to cry down his own\nprotection.\n\nIf Mr. Munn was in it, and if Mr. Munn at that time was the superior\nofficer of the collector, and this man had protection to sell, would he\nnot have said that Munn was also in the ring? When he was trying to sell\nprotection to George Burrows at ten dollars a barrel, George Burrows\nasked him if Munn was in the ring and he said he was not. If Mr. Munn\nhad been why didn't he say that Munn was? For the reason that that would\nmake his protection appear to be of a better quality, and he could have\nsold it at a better price. But he said \"no,\" and that they did not\nneed him, because they could manage him, and fool him through this man\nBridges, and you will recollect that Bridges was appointed directly by\nthe Government and not by Munn; and Bridges reported directly to the\nGovernment and not to Munn. He had nothing to do with him one way or the\nother, except that they were both in the Revenue Department.\n\nNow, I say if it is possible that a man can cry down his own wares\nthat he wishes to sell, then you may say that the statement of Rehm is\nnatural.\n\nNow, gentlemen, why should he inform Burrows that Munn was about to make\na visit here? In order that Burrows might have an opportunity to\nhave his house put in order. Why should he have sent notices to other\ndistillers that Munn was coming? Why should he tell them to put their\nhouses in order? So as to be ready for a visit from Mr. Munn. It may be\nthat the counsel for the Government will say, \"This shows the infinite\nfidelity of this infinite rascal.\"\n\nNow, I will come to this part of my argument again, but the next thing\nI will speak of is his story, where he says that he actually paid the\nmoney to Munn himself, and if there is anything left of that after I get\nthrough with it you are at perfect liberty to find the defendant guilty.\nYou must recollect that he had a bargain. Now, according to his story,\nhe paid this money to Bridges. You must recollect, according to his\nstory, that Munn at that time was one of the conspirators, had been\nreceiving money—a half of thirty-five thousand dollars or forty-five\nthousand dollars having gone into his pocket. Recollect that. He goes\nover one day to the rectifying-house of Roelle & Junker, and there are\nsome barrels found, the stamps of which had not been scratched. Mr. Munn\nwas assured by Roelle that there was no fraud. Roelle still swears that\nthere was no fraud. He was afterward assured by Junker that there was no\nfraud. Junker still swears that there was no fraud.\n\nNow, what does Rehm come in to swear? Rehm says that Bridges came to him\nand told him that Munn was going to make trouble—going to make trouble\nabout these barrels that had the stamps on that were not scratched off.\nWhy did not Rehm say to him, \"How is he going to make a fuss? He has got\ntwenty thousand dollars of money already. He is in the conspiracy. He is\na nice man to make a fuss! What is he going to make a fuss about?\" Would\nit not have been just as likely that Bridges should have made a fuss as\nthat Munn should have made it? Bridges, according to the testimony\nof your immaculate witness, was in this no more than Munn—not\none particle. And why was Munn going to make trouble? Mr. Rehm has\nendeavored to answer that question. Mr. Rehm then goes to Munn, sent\nthere by Bridges—it would be very hard to find out why he did not give\nthe money to Bridges,—but he went to Munn and says: \"You are going to\nmake some trouble about what you found at Roelle & Junker's?\" \"Yes.\"\n\n\"Why?\"\n\n\"Because,\" he says, \"the men at work there—the persons employed\nthere—will make a fuss about it, but they will see it and say that it\nis overlooked.\"\n\nNow, that is the reason that Rehm puts in the mouth of the defendant.\nAfterward he goes himself to Junker and advises him to give him five\nhundred dollars, and Junker proposes one thousand dollars, and gives\nhim one thousand dollars, and then he sends for Munn and he comes to his\noffice, and he hands him one thousand dollars.\n\nNow, gentlemen, the reason Munn gave was that the men there would notice\nit and make a disturbance about it.\n\nWell, then, why not pay the men? What is the use of paying Munn? If this\nwas done to prevent the men working at the rectifying-house from making\ntrouble, why not pay the men? Why not pay the men who were going to make\nthe trouble? Why give an extra thousand dollars to a conspirator to whom\nyou had already given twenty thousand dollars, and who, at that time,\naccording to the testimony of Rehm, was officially rotten? Why not\ngive the money to men who were going to make the trouble? And the next\nquestion is this—and if you will recollect the testimony of Roelle, he\nswears that when the defendant came to the rectifying-house, he (Roelle)\nwas alone. He swears that he was alone. He swears that all the rest had\ngone to dinner, and according to Roelle's testimony there was nobody\nthere but himself. Where were the men that were going to make this\ndisturbance? Where were the men that were going to notice this\noversight? Where were the men that were going to stir up difficulties\nat Washington or any other place? According to the testimony of Roelle\nthose people were at dinner, and where, gentlemen, is the philosophy of\nthat lie which they have told? Where is it? Why should he have paid Munn\nmoney? Why didn't he pay it to Bridges? If it was for the purpose of\nstopping the men from making trouble, why not pay it to the men they\nwished to stop? I ask the gentlemen to answer that question. I ask the\ngentlemen to tell us what men were in danger of making this trouble? Was\nit the gauger who received six hundred dollars a month for being a liar\nand a thief? Was it the book-keeper who, every report that he made,\nswore to a lie? Was there any danger of these liars and of these thieves\nmaking a fuss on their own account? Was there any danger of that gauger\nstopping his own pay? Was there any danger of that book-keeper trying to\nthrow himself out of employment? Was there any danger of any thief or\nof any conspirator saying anything calculated to bring this rascality\nto the surface? If a bribed gauger would not tell it; if a bribed\nbook-keeper would not tell it, I ask the Attorney-General for the\nGovernment, would Munn tell it, who had received, according to your\nevidence, over twenty thousand dollars of fraudulent money? Was there\nany danger of Munn turning state's evidence against himself? Was there\nnot just as much danger of Bridges making a fuss as Munn? Was there not,\naccording to their testimony, the same danger of Rehm himself going\nto Washington as there would be of a bribed gauger, and of a lying\nbook-keeper? Gentlemen, your story won't hang together. There is no\nphilosophy in it, and it will not fit anything except another lie made\non purpose to fit it; and it has got to be made by a better mechanic\nthan Jacob Rehm.\n\nNow, then, gentlemen, what more? The district attorney told you, and\nI was astonished when he told it—I was astonished—he said that the\ntestimony of Jacob Rehm was not impeached; that, on the contrary, it was\nsustained by these other witnesses. Had he made such a statement under\noath I am afraid an indictment for perjury would lie. He said that the\ntestimony had been sustained rather than impeached. How sustained?\n\n\"Mr. Rehm, did you ever give Mr. Burroughs notice that Mr. Munn was\ncoming in order that he might put his house in order?\"\n\nMr. Rehm says, \"No.\"\n\nWe then asked Mr. Burroughs, \"Did Mr. Rehm ever give you such notice?\"\nand he corroborates Mr. Rehm by saying \"Yes,\" if that is what you call\ncorroboration.\n\n\"Did you tell Mr. Hesing that Munn was not in it?\" \"I did not.\" \"Mr.\nHesing, did Mr. Rehm tell you that Munn was not in it.\" \"He did.\"\n\nThat is another instance of the attorney's idea of corroboration.\n\n\"Did you tell Hesing that Hoyt was innocent?\" \"I did not.\" \"Mr. Hesing,\ndid Mr. Rehm tell you that Hoyt was innocent?\" \"He did.\"\n\nAnother corroboration.\n\n\"Did you tell him that Munn never was in it—that Munn was innocent?\"\n\"No.\"\n\nWe then asked him,\n\n\"Did he tell you that?\" \"He did.\"\n\nWe say to Burroughs,\n\n\"In 1874, in 1873, in 1872, did Rehm tell you that Munn was not in it?\"\n\"He did.\"\n\nThat is another idea I suppose of corroboration.\n\nQ. Mr. Rehm, how much money did the house of Dickenson &c Leach give\nyou? A. Twenty-five thousand dollars.\n\nQ. Will you swear they did not give you thirty? A. I will.\n\nMr. Leach on the stand:\n\nQ. How much money did your house give Rehm? A. Between forty thousand\nand fifty thousand dollars.\n\nAnother instance of corroboration.\n\nWe then called Mr. Burroughs upon the stand. He belonged to the same\nhouse:\n\nQ. How much money did you give Jacob Rehm? A. Fifty-two thousand\ndollars.\n\nAnother instance of corroboration.\n\nQ. Mr. Rehm, did Mr. Abel ever give you any money? A. Yes, sir.\n\nQ. How many times? A. Once.\n\nQ. How much? A. Five hundred dollars.\n\nQ. Will you swear it was not a thousand? A. Yes.\n\nMr. Abel take the stand.\n\nQ. Did you ever pay Jacob Rehm any money? A. Yes.\n\nQ. How often? A. Once.\n\nQ. How much? A. Two thousand dollars.\n\nAnd that is another instance of the corroboration of Jacob Rehm. And\nwhen a man is thus corroborated, gentlemen, his reputation for truth and\nveracity \"spreads like sunlight all over the city of Chicago.\" There was\nnot a circumstance, there was not a statement made by Mr. Rehm except it\nwas made in the presence of Bridges, who is in Canada; of Irwin, who is\nin his grave, or in the presence of the defendant, who stands here with\nhis mouth closed—not one solitary circumstance, with those exceptions,\nthat has not been contradicted. Can you believe this man? Can you\nbelieve this man who has been contradicted by every one brought upon the\nstand? Can you take his word after he has sworn as he has? I tell you,\ngentlemen, you cannot do it, and as Judge Doolittle told you, if there\nis an infamous crime in the world, it is the crime of perjury. All the\nsneaking instincts; all the groveling, crawling instincts unite and\nblend in this one crime called perjury. It clothes itself, gentlemen, in\nthe shining vestments of an oath in order that it may tell a lie.\n\nPerjury poisons the wells of truth, the sources of justice. Perjury\nleaps from the hedges of circumstance, from the walls of fact, to\nassassinate justice and innocence. Perjury is the basest and meanest and\nmost cowardly of crimes. What can it do? Perjury can change the common\nair that we breathe into the axe of an executioner. Perjury out of this\nair can forge manacles for free hands. Perjury out of a single word\ncan make a hangman's rope and noose. Perjury out of a word can build a\nscaffold upon which the great and noble must suffer. It was told during\nthe Middle Ages and in the time of the Inquisition, that the inquisitors\nhad a statue of the Virgin Mary, and when a man was brave enough to\nthink his own thoughts he was brought before this tribunal and before\nthis beautiful statue, robed in gorgeous robes and decked with jewels,\nand as a punishment he was made to embrace it. The inquisitor touched a\nhidden spring; the arms of the statue clutched the victim and drew him\nto a breast filled with daggers. Such, gentlemen, is perjury, and if you\ntake into consideration the evidence of this witness when you retire to\nthe jury-room, you, in my judgment, will commit an outrage. Every man\nhere should spurn that man from the threshold of his conscience as he\nwould a rabid cur from the threshold of his house.\n\nIs there any safety in the world if you take the testimony of these men,\nespecially when character avails nothing? Is there any safety in human\nsociety if you will take the testimony of a perjured man? Is there any\nsafety in living among mankind if this is the law,—if the statement\nof a confessed conspirator makes the character of a great and good man\nworthless? For one I had rather flee to the woods and live with wild\nbeasts and savage nature.\n\nGentlemen, I know that you will pay no attention to that kind of\ntestimony. I know it. I know that you cannot do it. And why? You know\nthat that man is swearing a lie for the purpose of protection. You know\nthat that man is swearing a lie under the smile of the Government of the\nUnited States. You know it. You know he expects a benefit from it. You\nknow it. When the other witnesses, Burroughs and Hesing, that swear\nhere—understand that they are swearing beneath a frown. Understand that\nthey know that no mercy will be extended to them by the attorneys that\nthey have offended. Understand that, and when you understand that a man\nis swearing to protect himself, and when he is a man that will swear to\na lie for money, of course he will swear to a lie to keep himself out of\nthe penitentiary, or to shorten his time—I say, when you know a man is\nplaced in that condition, you have no right to give the least weight to\nhis testimony, not one particle.\n\nWhat more, gentlemen. Why, they have another witness, and he has\nsworn nothing. He has sworn nothing that has anything to do with this\nconspiracy one way or the other. Nothing! The only evidence against the\ndefendant, I tell you, is the evidence of Mr. Jacob Rehm.\n\nThe defendant, gentlemen, was an officer of the revenue for several\nyears. When he came to Chicago, in 1871, the district attorney said the\ndistillers were here in full blast making illicit whiskey. If he had\nread the evidence he knew better; if he had not, he had no business\nto make any statement about it. In 1871, when the defendant came here,\naccording to the testimony of all these men, the distilleries were\nrunning straight, and the rascality did not commence until the fall of\n1872, when Jacob Rehm sold protection to these distillers. The defendant\nhad been here a year before any frauds were committed. He was then\nsupervisor of internal revenue up to May, 1875. During that time he did\nmany official acts; during that time he wrote hundreds and thousands of\nletters; during that time he made hundreds and hundreds of visits to\nall these establishments. They have searched the records; they have had\nevery nook and cranny looked at by a hired detective, and all that they\ncan possibly bring forward is the beggarly account presented in this\ncase: First, that there were four or five barrels of rum without the ten\ncent stamps, and that, you know, is a thing that ought to send a man to\nthe penitentiary; next, twenty-five barrels of which the stamps had not\nbeen scratched, but about which there was no fraud. Ought a man to be\nsent to the penitentiary because he does not seize a house when there\nhas been a technical violation without any fraud? A supervisor that will\ndo it ought to be kicked out of office; he ought to be kicked out of the\nsociety of honest and decent men, and if this defendant was satisfied\nfrom the story of Roelle and Junker that there had been no fraud\ncommitted by leaving the stamps on the twenty-five barrels unscratched,\nand had seized that house, that would have been an act of meanness, an\nact of oppression, which I do not believe even a Government attorney\nwould uphold unless he was hired in the case. Now, what next did he do?\nThe next thing he did he went to Golsen & Eastman. Gentlemen, I do not\ncare to speak much of Golsen. If there ever was a man utterly devoid of\nsuch a thing as principle, if there ever was a man that would read the\nstatute against stealing, and stand in perfect amazement that anybody\never thought of making such a statute, it certainly must be Golsen. You\nheard him, and he is the man that said he told lies in business; he\nis the man that said he did not think it was wrong to swear lies in\nbusiness, and his business now is to keep out of the penitentiary; that\nis his principal business, that is one of the gentlemen they have hired,\nthat is one of the gentlemen they have brought forward here to offend\nthe nostrils of decent men. Now, then, he went to Golsen & Eastman.\nJudge Bangs told you in his speech that Golsen then and there explained\nhis infamy to Munn.\n\nIf there is anything which makes my blood boil it is to have the\nevidence misstated for the purpose of putting a man in the penitentiary.\nI never will make a misstatement to add to my reputation.\n\nI recollect that evidence so perfectly. I recollected it so clearly\nthat it shocked me when he stated that the man Golsen explained all his\nrascality and villainy to Munn. Why, I never heard of such evidence.\nWhat was it? It was said by Mr. Ayer in the opening that in the presence\nof Munn, Golsen said to Bridges, \"It is not now all right,\" or something\nlike that, \"but I can make it right,\" or that he said in the presence\nof Munn, to Bridges, something that should have put Munn on his guard.\nI heard that, and I heard Golsen, when he came on the stand, say that he\nsaid that to Bridges, and you will bear me out when I say that I asked\nhim in his cross-examination, \"Did Munn hear it? Did you say it thinking\nthat Munn did hear it?\" and he did not pretend any such thing. He did\nnot pretend it, and I tell you I was hurt, I was touched, I admit it,\nwhen Judge Bangs made the statement. I have an interest in this case. I\nam not only an attorney in this case, but, gentlemen, I am proud to\nsay I am the defendant's friend. I am more than his attorney; I am his\nfriend, and when an attorney makes a statement like that I must say\nit shocks me. Golsen did not swear that he explained his villainy to\nMunn—not a word of that kind or character. On the contrary he simply\nsaid he told this to Bridges, not to Munn, and that Munn did not hear\nit.\n\nWhat more? Col. Eastman was there at the same time.\n\nCol. Eastman says he did everything he could to impress upon Mr. Munn\nthat it was an honest transaction. What more? Then he went through the\nrectifying-house like an honest man. How did he act? Like an honest man.\nDid he act like somebody trying to cover up a fraud? No, he acted like\nan honest man, and I tell you up to that time Mr. Eastman had borne\na good reputation—a good character in the state of Illinois. Munn\nbelieved what he said. He believed there had been an accident. Munn\nbelieved they made the charge in the books not for the purpose of\ncovering up a fraud, but for the purpose of making the books agree with\nthe facts. So much for that.\n\nI do not recollect any others. I do not recollect any others that amount\nto anything—that can throw the slightest suspicion on this defendant.\nIf he were upon trial now for failing to make a report; if he were on\ntrial now for malfeasance or non-feasance or negligence as an officer,\nit would be proper to bring all these things before this jury, but that\nis not the case. He is here for entering into a conspiracy to defraud\nthe Government, and these things that they have shown outside,—and it\nis perfectly amazing to me they have not shown more,—it is perfectly\namazing to me that a man could be in that position the years he was\nwithout making more mistakes—I say, all they prove in the world is\n(give them their very worst construction), that he was guilty of some\nnegligence as an officer, but they do not attempt to prove that he was\nin a conspiracy with Mr. Jacob Rehm to steal.\n\nThe next point, gentlemen, to which I wish to call your attention is the\ntestimony of Mr. Rehm before the grand jury. You recollect when we put\non Mr. Ward to show what Rehm testified to before the grand jury, that\nMr. Ayer suggested that we had better have the notes. I saw then that\nhe was extremely anxious for Schlichter to get on the stand. Then we\nintroduced Mr. Oleson, and he still spoke about having the notes. I\nunderstood that it was a part of his case to have Schlichter brought on\nthe stand in some way. Now, then, it does not make any difference to\nme whether Schlichter swore to the truth or not. Not a particle, not\na particle, but I think he did. But if he did swear a lie, and he will\nswear a lie every chance he gets, in the course of time he will get such\na character and such a reputation that a district attorney of the United\nStates will stand up and say: \"Schlichter's reputation is good; it\nspreads like sunlight all over the city of Chicago.\" Now, then, you have\nbeen told by Judge Doolittle all the men who swore that he did swear\nbefore the grand jury, that he did not know of any crookedness. You have\nheard the testimony of men who swear that he did swear before the grand\njury that he knew of no fraud. If he did so swear he perjured himself\nor he has perjured himself now. But what more? Whether he swore that or\nnot, he swore this according to their own statements:\n\nQ. At the time you burned your books had you any knowledge that they\ncontained any evidence of fraud against the Government? A. No, sir.\n\nNow, he knew the distillers used a certain amount of malt to make a\ncertain amount of high-wines, and he knew the more malt they used the\nmore high-wines they would have to account for, and if they bought twice\nas much malt as was necessary to make the whiskey upon which they paid\nthe tax, he knew that that was evidence that they had been running\nwithout paying the tax. If it takes a certain amount of malt for a\ngallon of high-wines, and his books would show they had used twice as\nmuch malt as they had paid taxes, according to gallons, then he did\nknow that his books did contain evidence showing that they had committed\nfraud. And when he said his books did not, he told what he knew was a\ndeliberate lie. What more does he say? He says these books were burned\nup about the first of May just to get them out of the way,—for no\nearthly object except simply to get them out of the way,—and he swears\nthat he sold to nearly all these distillers malt, and he knew that the\namount of malt sold to each of these distilleries would determine the\namount of whiskey they had made, that is, not into a barrel or into a\ngallon, but approximately, and he knew the more malt they used the more\ntax they would have to show that they had paid. And he knew that his\nbooks would be evidence against every distiller in the city. He knew\nthat, and yet he swears here, squarely and fairly, that at the time he\nburned his books he did not know that they were of any value as evidence\nagainst these distillers.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I want to call your attention to another thing. When\nI asked him, when he was called here on the stand, if he was not asked\nabout crookedness, whether he was not asked about fraud, at first he\nstumbled into telling the truth, as far as that was concerned, as far as\nbeing asked was concerned, and then told a lie as to how he answered it.\nNow, let me read it to you; you may have forgotten it. There is nothing\nlike having these things printed:\n\nQ. Were you sworn before that grand jury by anybody? A. Yes, sir.\n\nQ. Were you asked any question about this whiskey business? A. Yes, sir.\n\nQ. Were you asked by one of the grand jurors whether you knew of any\nillicit whiskey being made in this city by any of those distilleries? A.\nNo, sir.\n\nQ. I ask you in regard to your answer to that, if you did not say you\ndid not? A. I did not.\n\nQ. What did you say? A. The question was not asked in that way.\n\nQ. Well, wait until I ask you, and then you can tell. Were you not asked\nif you knew of any crookedness about whiskey, and didn't you reply \"No\"?\nA. No; I answered \"Yes.\"\n\nThere is his testimony. He was afraid then that he was caught, and he\nwas going to swear deliberately that he swore before the grand jury,\nthat he did know of crookedness. Then he changed his idea, and says\nafterward that it is about the one hundred and fifty barrels. He says\nnow, \"Put your question.\" Then I put this question—\"Put your question.\"\n[Question repeated.] \"A. The question was not put to me in that way.\"\n\nNow, he gets out of it and says it was the one hundred and fifty barrels\nhe talked about; but I asked him then if he was not asked if he did not\nknow about any crookedness here and how he answered it, and he says that\nhe answered it \"Yes.\" That is, before he found out that it was necessary\nto change his answer or to change his mind upon that question. That is\nwhat he says. And it is utterly impossible, gentlemen, to get out of\nthe fact that he did, before that grand jury, swear that he knew of no\ncrookedness. You can not get out upon Mr. Roelle's testimony. You can\nnot get out upon the idea that Schlichter put it in. Schlichter did not\nput it into the memory of the old man Samson. Schlichter did not\nwrite it in the memory of Mr. Hoag. Schlichter did not write it in the\nconsciousness of Mr. Oleson. Schlichter did not write it in short-hand\nin the head of J. D. Ward. Schlichter, I tell you, by his short-hand\nnecromancy, has not changed six or seven men into liars whether he put\nthat in the second line from the top or not. He cannot do that with his\nshort-hand, gentlemen. He could not make old Mr. Samson come here and\nsay, \"I asked that question myself; I thought that when he was there he\nwas the head centre of all the rascality. And so just before he went\nout I put one of those general, pinching questions as to whether he knew\nanything. It was a kind of conscience scraper.\" The old man put that\nquestion just as these witnesses were going out: \"Do you know anything\nabout any fraud? Do you know anything about any crookedness?\" It was\na kind of a last question that would cover the case, and the old man\nrecollects that he put it to Jacob Rehm and he recollects why he put it\nto him, because he believed at that time that he was the head centre of\nthe villainy. Mr. Hoag says the same thing. Mr. Hoag says that he\nlooked upon him as the great rascal in the business; and he recollects\ndistinctly that he asked him that question; and he recollects as\ndistinctly how he answered it. J. D. Ward was the attorney of the United\nStates, and he swears to it that he recollects it perfectly. Oleson\nwas an attorney of the United States. He says that he recollects it\nperfectly. And yet is this all to be accounted for, gentlemen, by saying\nthat Mr. Schlichter inserted it in his notes and that all these other\ngentlemen are mistaken? The fact is, gentlemen, that Mr. Rehm, when he\nwas there, had not made up his mind to vomit; he had not yet made up his\nmind that he could make a bargain with the United States to get out\nof punishment. He did not know at that time that he need not go to\nthe penitentiary if he would furnish a substitute. He did not know,\ngentlemen, at that time that he could have any understanding with\nanybody; if he would bring better blood than his they would deal lightly\nwith him. He did not know at that time that two owls could be traded\noff for an eagle. He did not know at that time that two snakes could be\ntraded off for a decent man. As soon as he found that out, then, instead\nof saying that he did not know anything about any crookedness; instead\nof saying that he did not know anything about any fraud, he said,\ngentlemen, \"I know all about it. I know all of them; every one of them.\"\n\nNow, gentlemen, I want you to put against that man's testimony the lies\nhe swore to himself. I want you to put against that man's testimony the\nimprobability that he would commit numberless crimes for nothing. I want\nyou to put against that man's testimony the testimony of every one who\nhas contradicted and disputed him. I want you to put against that man's\ntestimony the idea and the fact that he warned these other men against\nthe approach of Munn. I want you to put against that man's testimony all\nthe circumstances of the lies he has sworn; and I want you, in addition\nto that, to put against that man's testimony the evidence of this\ndefendant.\n\nYou have been told by the district attorney—and if I have said anything\ntoo strong in the warmth of this discussion I beg his pardon. I have\nknown Judge Bangs a long time, I have been his friend, I respect him;\nbut I must say I felt a little outraged at what he said, because he said\nhe had sympathy with this defendant. He got up here and said that the\ndefendant bore a most excellent reputation. He got up and said that he\nsympathized with him, and all at once I saw his sympathy was a cloak\nunder which he concealed a dagger to stab him. Now, then, he says\ngood character is nothing. Good character is nothing! Good character,\ngentlemen, is not made in a day. It is the work of a life. The walls of\nthat grand edifice called a good character have to be worked at during\nlife. All the good deeds, all the good words, everything right and true\nand honest that he does, goes into this edifice, and it is domed and\npinnacled with lofty aspirations and grand ambitions. It is not made in\na day, neither can it be crumbled into blackened dust by a word from the\nputrid mouth of a perjurer. Let these snakes writhe and hiss about it.\nLet the bats fly in at its windows if they can. They cannot destroy it;\nbut above them all rises the grand dome of a good character, not with\nthe bats and snakes, but up, gentlemen, with eagles in the sunlight.\nThey cannot prevail against a good character. Is it worth anything? If\never I am indicted for any offence and stand before a jury, I hope that\nI shall be able to prove as unsullied a reputation as Daniel W. Munn\nhas proved. And when I read those letters, not only saying that his\ncharacter was good, but adding \"above reproach,\" it thrilled me and I\nthought to myself then, \"if ever you get in trouble will anybody certify\nas splendidly and as grandly to your reputation?\" There is not a man of\nthis jury that can prove a better reputation. There is not a judge on\nthe bench in the United States that can prove a better reputation. There\nnever was and there never will be an attorney at this bar that can prove\na better reputation. There is not one in this audience that can prove a\nbetter reputation. And yet we are told that that splendid fabric\ncalled a good character cannot stand for a moment against a word from a\ngratuitous villain—not one moment.\n\nSuch, gentlemen, is not the law of this country. Such, gentlemen, never\nwill be the law of this land or of any other. I deny it, and I hurl it\nback with scorn. A good character will stand against the testimony of\nall the thieves on earth. A good character, like a Gibraltar, will stand\nagainst the testimony of all the rascals in the universe, no matter how\nthey assail it. It will stand, and it will stand firmer and grander the\nmore it is assaulted. What is the use of doing honestly? What is the use\nof working and toiling? What is the use of taking care of your wife\nand your children? Where is the use, I say, of being honest in your\nbusiness? What is the use of always paying your debts as you agree? What\nis the use of living for others? Character is made of duty and love and\nsympathy, and, above all, of living and working for others. What is\nthe use of being true to principle? What is the use of taking a sublime\nstand in favor of the right with the world against you? What is the\nuse of being true to yourself? What is the use, I say, if all this\ncharacter, if all this noble action, if all this efflorescence of soul\ncan be blasted and blown from the world simply by a word from the\nmouth of a confessed felon? And yet we are assured here in this august\ntribunal, in a Federal court of the United States, where the defendant\nstands under the protection of the the Constitution of his country, that\nhis character is absolutely worthless.\n\nThey say, \"Why don't you bring somebody to impeach Mr. Jacob Rehm?\" Why?\nbecause he has impeached himself.\n\nTo impeach a man is the last method. If he tells an improbable story,\nthat impeaches him. If he tells an unnatural story, that impeaches him.\nIf you prove he has sworn a different way, that impeaches him. If you\nshow he has stated a different way, that impeaches him. What is the use\nof impeaching him any more? That would be a waste of time.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I say to you, and I say to you once for all, I want you\nto get out of your minds and out of your hearts any prejudice against\nthis man on account of these times. I understand now that in every man's\npathway hiss and writhe the serpents of suspicion. I understand now that\nevery man in high place can be pointed at with the dirty finger of a\nscurvy rascal. I understand that. I understand that no matter how high\nhis position is, that any man, no matter how low, how leprous he may be,\nwhat a cancerous heart he may have, he can point his finger at the man\nhigh up on the ladder of fame, and the man has to come down and explain\nto the wretched villain. I understand that; but these prejudices I want\nout of your mind. I want you to try this case according to the evidence\nand nothing else. I want you to say whether you believe the testimony\nof these conspirators and scoundrels. I want you to say whether you are\ngoing to take the testimony of that man, and if you bring in a verdict\nof guilty I want you to be able to defend yourselves when you go to the\ndefendant and tell him: \"We found you guilty upon a man's testimony who\nadmitted that he was a thief: who admitted that he was a perjurer; who\nadmitted that he hired others to swear lies, and who committed crimes\nwithout number year after year.\" I want you to say whether that is an\nexcuse to give to him. Is it an excuse to give to his pallid, invalid\nwife? Is it an excuse to give to his father eighty years old, trembling\nupon the verge of the grave: \"I sent your son to the penitentiary upon\nthe evidence of a convicted thief\"? I say is it an excuse to give to his\nweeping wife? Is it an excuse to give to his child: \"I sent your father\nto the penitentiary upon the evidence of Jacob Rehm\"? There is not one\nof you can go to the child, or to the sick wife, or to the old man, or\nto the defendant himself, and without the blush of shame say: \"I sent\nyou to the penitentiary upon the evidence of Jacob Rehm.\" You cannot do\nit. It is not in human nature to do it.\n\nNow, gentlemen, there is one other thing I want to say. Suspicion is not\nevidence. Suspicious circumstances are not evidence. All the suspicion\nin the world, all the suspicious circumstances in the world, amount not\nto evidence. I want to say one more thing. They say that the testimony\nof a thief ought to be corroborated. By whom? another thief? No. Because\nthat other thief wants corroboration, and that other thief would want\ncorroboration, and so on until thieves ran out, which I think would be\na long time in this particular community at this particular time.\nUnderstand that whatever one thief swears, that it is not corroborated\nbecause another thief swears to the same thing, and upon the point upon\nwhich Judge Doolittle dwelt so splendidly he must be corroborated upon\nthe exact point. For instance, Mr. Munn went to his house, Mr. Munn\nwent to his office, and another man says, I saw him there. That is not\ncorroboration. He must be corroborated in the fact that he gave him the\nmoney, not that Munn went to his house—not that he had an opportunity\nto give him the money—not that he was there, but he must be\ncorroborated as to the exact, identical point that makes the guilt.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I am going to leave this case with you. I feel a\ngreat interest in it. The defendant feels an infinite interest in it,\ninfinite, I tell you. It is all he has on earth, all he has is with you.\nYou are going to take his hopes; you are going to take his aspirations;\nyou are going to take his ambition; you are going to take his family;\nyou are going to take his child; you are going to take everything he\nhas in this world into your power. It is a fearful thing to take this\nresponsibility. I know it. But you are going to take it—his future,\neverything he has dreamed and hoped for, everything that he has expected\nto attain—his character, everything he has that is dear to him, and you\nare going to say \"Not guilty,\" or you are going to cover him with the\nmantle of infamy and shame forever; you are going to disgrace his blood;\nyou are going to bring those that love him down with sorrow to their\ngraves; you are either going to do that or you are going to say, \"We\nwill not believe the testimony of self-convicted robbers and thieves.\"\nAnd, gentlemen, I ask you, I implore you, I beseech you, more than that,\nI demand of you that you find in this case a verdict of \"Not guilty.\"\nPut yourself in his place. Do you want to be convicted on that kind\nof testimony? Do you want to go to the penitentiary with that kind\nof witnesses against you? Do you want to be locked up on that kind of\ntestimony? Do you want to be separated from your wife or your child on\nthat kind of evidence? Do you want to be rendered infamous during your\nlife upon the testimony of such men as Golsen and Conklin and Rehm?\nDo you? Do you? Do you? Does any man in the world imagine that twelve\nhonest men can be found that can rob another of his citizenship, of his\nhonor, of his character, of his home, and of his entire fortune, simply\nupon the testimony of such scoundrels? No, gentlemen. For myself, for\nthis defendant, I have no fear. All I ask is that you will give to\nthis evidence the weight that it deserves. All I ask of the prosecuting\nattorney in this case is that he do his duty. All I ask of him is to\nstate just as nearly as he can, as I have no doubt he will, the evidence\nin the case. All I ask of him is that he give to all these circumstances\ntheir due weight, and no more. I ask him to fight for justice and not\nfor his reputation. I ask him to fight for the honor of the Government.\nI ask him to fight for the complete doing of justice, if he can, but I\nhope he will leave out of the case all idea that he must win a case\nor that I must lose a case. We are contending for too great a stake.\nPersonally, I care nothing about it, whether I make or lose what you\nplease to call reputation in this affair. I care everything for my\nclient. I care everything for his honor, and more than that, gentlemen,\nI love the United States of America. I love this Government, I love this\nform of government, and I do not want to see the sources of government\npoisoned. I do not want to see a state of things in the United States of\nAmerica whereby a man can be consigned to a dungeon upon the testimony\nof a robber and thief, simply upon a political issue, simply by the\ntestimony of some man who wishes to purchase immunity at the price of\nanother's liberty and honor.\n\nOne more point, and I have done. I had forgotten it, or I should have\nmentioned it before. They have appealed to you all along to say that the\nfact that high-wines were so cheap during all this time put Mr. Munn upon\nhis information, so to speak, that there were frauds. Let me take those\nbooks and let us see. On the 6th day of June, 1874, the tax on spirits\nwas seventy cents, and the price was ninety-four cents. That made them\nget twenty-four cents a gallon for the whiskey. Understand, the tax was\nseventy, the price was ninety-four. That made them get twenty-four cents\nfor the whiskey. Now, then, on the 10th of June it was ninety-six and a\nhalf cents. That made twenty-six and a half for the whiskey. On the 10th\nof June, 1874, twenty-six and a half they got for the whiskey. February\n11, 1874, ninety-six cents, which made twenty-six cents; and so it went\non in that way, until what? Until the tax was raised from seventy cents\nto ninety cents, and what is it now? The tax on whiskey, gentlemen, is\nninety cents, and the price on the 10th day of May, 1876, is one dollar\nand seven cents; so that the price of whiskey now is only seventeen\ncents above the tax, and at the time that Mr. Munn ought to have known\nthat everybody was a thief and rascal, the price was twenty-six cents\nabove the tax, ten cents more than now. From these figures, gentlemen,\nyou will see it, and how high did it go? The day Mr. Munn was turned out\nof office—gentlemen, on the tenth day of May, 1875,—the tax then being\nninety cents, whiskey was worth one dollar and fifteen cents. The day he\nwas turned out. It was nine cents more than it is today. You are welcome\nto all you can make out of that argument. It was worth nine cents more a\ngallon above the tax the day he was turned out than it is to-day, and\nif Mr. Munn was bound to take judicial notice that there was nothing but\nfrauds in the district, and every distillery was running crooked, I\nsay that the officers of the Government are bound to take that notice\nto-day, and you must recollect, gentlemen, that it was admitted in\nthis case that there were frauds all over the country, that there were\ndistilleries running in St. Louis, in San Francisco, in Milwaukee, in\nPeoria or Pekin, in Peoria, I believe, in my town, not a sound has been\nheard, and not a solitary man, I believe, charged with fraud—in St.\nLouis, in Louisville, in Cincinnati, in all these towns. Now, where was\nthe whiskey being made that was crooked? Nobody could tell. If there\nwas a vast amount being made in Cincinnati it would lessen the price in\nChicago, no matter whether the Chicago distillers were running honestly\nor not. If there was a vast amount being made in St. Louis it would\nlessen the price, no matter whether the other distilleries were running\nhonestly or not, consequently it was impossible for the supervisor to\ntell it.\n\nThere is another thing I forgot. During all the time Jacob Rehm was\ndoing this gratuitous rascality he was one of the bondsmen on the\nofficial bond of Hoyt. He was not only helping Hoyt steal and giving him\nall the money, but he was making himself responsible for the money he\nstole, and he did not charge any commission on it. He did not charge\nfor any shrinkage or shortage or anything in the world, but made himself\nliable for the uttermost farthing. He was on the bond of Collector\nIrwin, called the stamp bond, and so do not forget that he did not only\nnot take any money, but he went on the acknowledgments of the thieves\nthat stole it. He not only did not take any himself, but he made himself\nliable as a bondsman for what he gave to them. Do not forget these\nthings.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I believe I have said about all I wish to say to you;\nthe rest is for you. You must take the case, and, as I said, you do not\nwant to go off on any prejudice against the kind or the character of\nthe case. You do not want to go off on the idea that the air is full of\nrascality because some of us are to be tried next. We don't know. Let us\ntry this case fairly and squarely on the evidence, and the next time I\nmeet you, gentlemen, every one of you will be glad that you found this\ndefendant not guilty, as you cannot avoid doing.\n\n[The Jury rendered a verdict of \"Not Guilty.\"]\n"
}