* The United States vs. Daniel W. Munn, Deputy Supervisor of
Internal Revenue, who was indicted under Section 5440 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States.
There was an unusual rush to obtain admission to the United
States District Courtroom yesterday to listen to the closing
arguments of counsel in the Munn whiskey conspiracy trial
which has attracted so much attention during the past ten
days. The stalwart deputy who guards the entrance to this
judicial precinct was compelled to employ his entire
strength and power of persuasion to keep the eager, anxious
crowd from trespassing on the convenience and dignity of the
court. About ten o'clock the Court took the bench, and Col.
Ingersoll walked into the room, took off a broad-brimmed
felt hat, which gives the barrister, while he has it on,
somewhat the appearance of a full-grown, well-developed
Quaker in good standing in the society to which he belongs.
When he has the hat removed, however, the counsellor's
appearance undergoes a marked change. He then looks like the
crop-haired follower of the house of Montague in the
Shakespearean play. He sat down on a crazy old chair which
threatened every moment to break down beneath his weight,
and listened to the remarks of Judge Doolittle for the
remainder of the morning, until it came his time to talk.
Colonel Ingersoll never troubles himself to take notes of
anything. What he cannot recollect he does not have any use
for.
Judge Doolittle occupied the morning session until the time
for adjournment at one o'clock, with a review of the case on
the side of the defence. He was followed by Mr. Ingersoll in
the afternoon.
At two o' clock the court-room was more crowded than before,
and at that hour Mr. Ingersoll appeared in the forum and
delivered his speech in behalf of the defendant.--The Times,
Chicago, Ills., May 23, 1876.
IF the Court please and the gentlemen of the jury: Out of an abundance
of caution and, as it were, an extravagance of prudence, I propose to
make a few remarks to you in this case. The evidence has been gone over
by my associates, and arguments have been submitted to you which, in
my judgment, are perfectly convincing as far as the innocence of this
defendant is concerned. I am aware, however, that there is a prejudice
against a case of this character. I am aware that there is a prejudice
against any man engaged in the manufacture of alcohol. I know there is
a prejudice against a case of this kind; and there is a very good reason
for it. I believe to a certain degree with the district attorney in this
case, who has said that every man who makes whiskey is demoralized. I
believe, gentlemen, to a certain degree, it demoralizes those who make
it, those who sell it, and those who drink it. I believe from the time
it issues from the coiled and poisonous worm of the distillery, until it
empties into the hell of crime, dishonor, and death, that it demoralizes
everybody that touches it. I do not believe anybody can contemplate the
subject without becoming prejudiced against this liquid crime. All we
have to do, gentlemen, is to think of the wrecks upon either bank of the
stream of death--of the suicides, of the insanity, of the poverty, of
the ignorance, of the distress, of the little children tugging at the
faded dresses of weeping and despairing wives, asking for bread; of the
men of genius it has wrecked; the millions struggling with imaginary
serpents produced by this devilish thing. And when you think of the
jails, of the almshouses, of the asylums, of the prisons, of the
scaffolds upon either bank--I do not wonder that every thoughtful man is
prejudiced against the damned stuff called alcohol. And I know that we,
to a certain degree, have to fight that prejudice in this case; and so I
say, for this reason among others, I deem it proper that I should submit
to you, gentlemen, the ideas that occur to my mind upon this subject.
It may be proper for me to say here that I thank you, one and all, for
the patience you have shown during this trial. You have patiently heard
this testimony; you have patiently given your attention, I believe, to
every word that has fallen from the lips of these witnesses, and for one
I am grateful to you for it.
Now, gentlemen, understanding that there is this prejudice, knowing at
the time the case commenced that it existed, I asked each one of you
if there was any prejudice in your minds which in your judgment would
prevent your giving a fair and candid verdict in this case, and you all,
honestly, I know, replied that there was not. The district attorney,
Judge Bangs, stated to you in the opening of this case, for the purpose
of preparing your minds for the examination of this testimony, that you
must, first of all, divest your minds of sympathy. I do not say that,
gentlemen, neither would I say it were I the attorney of the Government
of the United States, but I do say this: Divest yourselves of prejudice
if you have it, but do not, gentlemen, divest yourselves of sympathy.
What is the great distinguishing characteristic of man? What is it that
distinguishes you and me from the lower animals--from the beasts? More,
I say, than anything else, human sympathy--human sympathy. Were it not
for sympathy, gentlemen, the idea of justice never would have entered
the human brain. This thing called sympathy is the mother of justice,
and although justice has been painted blind, never has she been
represented as heartless until so represented by the district attorney
in this case. I tell you there is no more sacred, no more holy, and
no purer thing than what you and I call sympathy; and the man who is
unsympathetic is not a man. Gentlemen, the white breast of the lily is
filthy as compared to the human heart perfumed with love and sympathy. I
do not want you to divest yourselves of sympathy, neither do I want
you to try the case entirely upon sympathy, but I want you sympathetic
enough to put yourselves honestly in the place of this defendant. Now,
gentlemen, as a matter of fact, this case resolves itself into simply
one point; all the rest is nothing; all the rest is the merest fog that
can be brushed from the mind with a wave of the hand, and it is all
resolved down to simply one point, and that is: Is Jacob Rehin worthy of
credit? Has Jacob Rehm told against this defendant a true story?
Now, that is all there is in this case. The other points that they
raise, and which I shall allude to before I get through, are valuable
only as they cast a certain amount of suspicion upon the defendant, but
the real point is, and the attorneys for the Government know it, Is Mr.
Jacob Rehm's story worthy of credit? Did he tell the truth? Judge Bangs
felt that was the only question, and for that reason, in advance, he
defended the reputation of Jacob Rehm for truth and veracity; and he
made to the jury this remarkable statement: "The reputation of Jacob
Rehm for truth and veracity is good. It spreads all over the city of
Chicago like sunlight." That was the statement made by the district
attorney of the United States. I do not believe that he would swear to
that part of his speech. It was an insult to every person on this jury.
It was an insult to this court; it was an insult to the intelligence of
every bystander, that the reputation of Jacob Rehm spread like sunlight
all over the city of Chicago! My God! what kind of sunlight do you mean?
Think of it!
Now, then, gentlemen, he knew it was necessary to defend the character
of Mr. Rehm; he knew it was necessary to defend that statement. He knew
that the testimony of Mr. Rehm was the only nail upon which the jury
could possibly hang a verdict of guilty in this case.
And now I propose to examine a little the testimony of Mr. Jacob Rehm. I
believe it was stated by Judge Bangs that one of the best tests of truth
was that a lie was at war with all the facts in the universe, and that
every fact standing, as it were, on guard, was a member of the police of
the universe to arrest all lies.
Let me state another truth. Every fact in the universe will fit every
other fact in the universe. A lie never did, never will, fit anything
but another lie made to fit it. Never, never! A lie is unnatural. A lie,
in the nature of things, is a monstrosity. A lie is no part of the great
circle, including the universe within its grasp, and consequently, as I
said before, will fit nothing except another lie. Now, then, to examine
the testimony of a witness, you examine into its naturalness, into its
probability, because you expect another man to act something as you
would under the same circumstances. We have no other way to judge other
people except by our own experience and an authenticated record of the
experience of others, consequently, when a man is telling a story, you
have to apply to it the test of your own experience, and as I say the
recorded tests of other honest men.
Now, let us suppose just for a moment that the testimony of Mr.
Jacob Rehm is true. Let us suppose it. It has been stated to you, and
admirably stated, by Judge Doolittle,--admirably stated,--that it was
the height of absurdity to suppose that a man would do as he did for
nothing. But let me put it in another light somewhat. According to
the testimony of Mr. Jacob Rehm, he first tried to stop this stealing.
Nobody offered him any money to stop it, but he simply went to the
collector, Irwin, and said they were stealing, and that it must be
stopped; and thereupon Collector Irwin changed the gaugers for the
purpose of stopping the stealing. A few days thereafter, somebody came
to him and wanted the stealing to commence, and he told them they would
have to pay for it, and the amount they would have to pay for it, and
he then went to Collector Irwin, whom he supposed at that time to be
a perfectly honest and upright man, and told him, in short, that they
wanted to steal, and would give five hundred dollars a month. Irwin
said, "Go ahead."
He admits that they did steal. He admits that they made a bargain with
him. He admits that that happened, and he assigned all these gaugers and
store-keepers. He admits that he did that for two years. He admits that
he received at least one hundred and twenty thousand dollars of this
money. He admits that in order to carry out this scheme he knew that
every distiller would have to sign a lie every time he made a report to
the Government. He admits that he knew every gauger would have to swear
to a lie at the end of every month in his report of the transactions of
each day. He admits that every store-keeper would be guilty of perjury
every time he made a report. He admits that he knew that the thing that
he was committing for two years was a daily penitentiary offence. He
admits that he put himself in the power of all these gaugers and all
these store-keepers, and all these distillers and rectifiers,--put it
in their power to have him arrested for a penitentiary offence at any
moment during the whole two years, and yet he tells you that he did this
absolutely for nothing! He tells you every cent he received he divided
and paid over; that he never kept a solitary dollar, except it may be
for a box of cigars. I want the attorney for the Government to tell this
jury that he believes that story. And if he does tell you so, gentlemen,
I will give you notice now that you need not believe any other word Mr.
Ayer says--if he says he believes that.
Now, then, what more? He knew that all these men were committing these
penitentiary offences, and that he was putting himself in the power of
all these men; and what was his motive? What, gentlemen, was his object?
It is impossible for me to imagine. If he got no money, if he made
nothing out of this transaction, it is impossible for me to imagine
why he embarked in such a course of crime. Why then did he say to
you, gentlemen, that he paid all this money over? It was to build up a
reputation with you. It was to make you think that whereas he paid this
all over, that whereas he did all this business simply to accommodate
his friends, that he was worthy of credit in his statement of this case.
He told you that he did not keep a dollar simply to make a reputation
with you. What did he want a reputation with you for? So that he would
be believed. And what did he want to be believed for? So that he could
send Munn to the penitentiary and, as the price of Munn's incarceration,
get his own liberty. That is the reason he swore it, and there is no
other reason in the world. Is it probable a man would commit all these
crimes for nothing? Is it possible that he would hire and bribe other
men to commit these crimes for nothing? I ask you; I ask your common
sense; I appeal to your brains: Is it probable that he would do all that
absolutely for nothing? Is it probable he would lay himself liable to
the penitentiary every hour in the day for two years for nothing? There
is and can be but one answer to such a question as that. Why, gentlemen,
if his statement is true that he did all this for nothing, he is the
most disinterested villain, the most self-sacrificing and self-denying
thief of which the history of the world gives any record. Is it
possible?
Is it possible, I say, that a man would make himself the sewer of all
the official rot in this city, in which was deposited the excrement of
frauds? Is it possible he would turn himself into a scavenger cart into
which should be thrown all the moral offal of the city of Chicago for
nothing? Whoever answers that question in the affirmative is, in my
judgment, an idiot. Nobody can. Nobody has a mind so constructed that it
can lodge an affirmative answer to that question within its brain.
What next? He tells you that Munn was in this plot; and that he, Mr.
Rehm, at the same time was selling protection to these distillers. No
distillers--and you know it--would have given him ten dollars a barrel
unless they expected protection. He then was engaged in the sale of
protection, was he not? Did you ever know of a vender crying down his
own wares? Did you ever hear of a merchant crying down the quality
of the cloth he wished to sell? Did you ever hear of a grocery man
endeavoring to cry down that which he wished you to buy?
Jacob Rehm was selling protection at ten dollars a barrel, and sometimes
asking twelve dollars and fifty cents. Was it not natural for him to
endeavor to convince distillers that he had plenty of protection to
sell? Was it not natural for him to make the distillers believe, "If
you will give me ten dollars a barrel you will have perfect protection"?
Would it be natural for him to say, "I will protect you for ten dollars
a barrel, and yet I have none of the officers in my pay"? They would
say, "What kind of protection have you got, sir?" Would it not be
natural for him to make out his protection as good as he possibly could?
Would it not be natural for him to tell you, "I have got all these
officers on my side, from the lowest gauger to the gentleman
who presides over the internal revenue department at the city of
Washington"? The more protection he had the more money he could get,
and consequently it would not be natural for him to cry down his own
protection.
If Mr. Munn was in it, and if Mr. Munn at that time was the superior
officer of the collector, and this man had protection to sell, would he
not have said that Munn was also in the ring? When he was trying to sell
protection to George Burrows at ten dollars a barrel, George Burrows
asked him if Munn was in the ring and he said he was not. If Mr. Munn
had been why didn't he say that Munn was? For the reason that that would
make his protection appear to be of a better quality, and he could have
sold it at a better price. But he said "no," and that they did not
need him, because they could manage him, and fool him through this man
Bridges, and you will recollect that Bridges was appointed directly by
the Government and not by Munn; and Bridges reported directly to the
Government and not to Munn. He had nothing to do with him one way or the
other, except that they were both in the Revenue Department.
Now, I say if it is possible that a man can cry down his own wares
that he wishes to sell, then you may say that the statement of Rehm is
natural.
Now, gentlemen, why should he inform Burrows that Munn was about to make
a visit here? In order that Burrows might have an opportunity to
have his house put in order. Why should he have sent notices to other
distillers that Munn was coming? Why should he tell them to put their
houses in order? So as to be ready for a visit from Mr. Munn. It may be
that the counsel for the Government will say, "This shows the infinite
fidelity of this infinite rascal."
Now, I will come to this part of my argument again, but the next thing
I will speak of is his story, where he says that he actually paid the
money to Munn himself, and if there is anything left of that after I get
through with it you are at perfect liberty to find the defendant guilty.
You must recollect that he had a bargain. Now, according to his story,
he paid this money to Bridges. You must recollect, according to his
story, that Munn at that time was one of the conspirators, had been
receiving money--a half of thirty-five thousand dollars or forty-five
thousand dollars having gone into his pocket. Recollect that. He goes
over one day to the rectifying-house of Roelle & Junker, and there are
some barrels found, the stamps of which had not been scratched. Mr. Munn
was assured by Roelle that there was no fraud. Roelle still swears that
there was no fraud. He was afterward assured by Junker that there was no
fraud. Junker still swears that there was no fraud.
Now, what does Rehm come in to swear? Rehm says that Bridges came to him
and told him that Munn was going to make trouble--going to make trouble
about these barrels that had the stamps on that were not scratched off.
Why did not Rehm say to him, "How is he going to make a fuss? He has got
twenty thousand dollars of money already. He is in the conspiracy. He is
a nice man to make a fuss! What is he going to make a fuss about?" Would
it not have been just as likely that Bridges should have made a fuss as
that Munn should have made it? Bridges, according to the testimony
of your immaculate witness, was in this no more than Munn--not
one particle. And why was Munn going to make trouble? Mr. Rehm has
endeavored to answer that question. Mr. Rehm then goes to Munn, sent
there by Bridges--it would be very hard to find out why he did not give
the money to Bridges,--but he went to Munn and says: "You are going to
make some trouble about what you found at Roelle & Junker's?" "Yes."
"Why?"
"Because," he says, "the men at work there--the persons employed
there--will make a fuss about it, but they will see it and say that it
is overlooked."
Now, that is the reason that Rehm puts in the mouth of the defendant.
Afterward he goes himself to Junker and advises him to give him five
hundred dollars, and Junker proposes one thousand dollars, and gives
him one thousand dollars, and then he sends for Munn and he comes to his
office, and he hands him one thousand dollars.
Now, gentlemen, the reason Munn gave was that the men there would notice
it and make a disturbance about it.
Well, then, why not pay the men? What is the use of paying Munn? If this
was done to prevent the men working at the rectifying-house from making
trouble, why not pay the men? Why not pay the men who were going to make
the trouble? Why give an extra thousand dollars to a conspirator to whom
you had already given twenty thousand dollars, and who, at that time,
according to the testimony of Rehm, was officially rotten? Why not
give the money to men who were going to make the trouble? And the next
question is this--and if you will recollect the testimony of Roelle, he
swears that when the defendant came to the rectifying-house, he (Roelle)
was alone. He swears that he was alone. He swears that all the rest had
gone to dinner, and according to Roelle's testimony there was nobody
there but himself. Where were the men that were going to make this
disturbance? Where were the men that were going to notice this
oversight? Where were the men that were going to stir up difficulties
at Washington or any other place? According to the testimony of Roelle
those people were at dinner, and where, gentlemen, is the philosophy of
that lie which they have told? Where is it? Why should he have paid Munn
money? Why didn't he pay it to Bridges? If it was for the purpose of
stopping the men from making trouble, why not pay it to the men they
wished to stop? I ask the gentlemen to answer that question. I ask the
gentlemen to tell us what men were in danger of making this trouble? Was
it the gauger who received six hundred dollars a month for being a liar
and a thief? Was it the book-keeper who, every report that he made,
swore to a lie? Was there any danger of these liars and of these thieves
making a fuss on their own account? Was there any danger of that gauger
stopping his own pay? Was there any danger of that book-keeper trying to
throw himself out of employment? Was there any danger of any thief or
of any conspirator saying anything calculated to bring this rascality
to the surface? If a bribed gauger would not tell it; if a bribed
book-keeper would not tell it, I ask the Attorney-General for the
Government, would Munn tell it, who had received, according to your
evidence, over twenty thousand dollars of fraudulent money? Was there
any danger of Munn turning state's evidence against himself? Was there
not just as much danger of Bridges making a fuss as Munn? Was there not,
according to their testimony, the same danger of Rehm himself going
to Washington as there would be of a bribed gauger, and of a lying
book-keeper? Gentlemen, your story won't hang together. There is no
philosophy in it, and it will not fit anything except another lie made
on purpose to fit it; and it has got to be made by a better mechanic
than Jacob Rehm.
Now, then, gentlemen, what more? The district attorney told you, and
I was astonished when he told it--I was astonished--he said that the
testimony of Jacob Rehm was not impeached; that, on the contrary, it was
sustained by these other witnesses. Had he made such a statement under
oath I am afraid an indictment for perjury would lie. He said that the
testimony had been sustained rather than impeached. How sustained?
"Mr. Rehm, did you ever give Mr. Burroughs notice that Mr. Munn was
coming in order that he might put his house in order?"