Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 August 1887 — ROGUES CONVICTED. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

ROGUES CONVICTED.

An Interesting: Account of the Close of the Great Conspiracy Trial at Chicago. The Terdict Demonstrates that Bribery and Corruption Are Punishable Offenses. There Yet Eemain Sixty-eight Boodler Indictments on the Cook County Calendar. [CHICAGO TELEGRAM. J The apparently interminable trial of the Cook County Commissioners, charged with conspiracy to rob this county, came to an end on Friday with a verdict which hardly meets popular expectations. Leyden, Ochs, Van Pelt, Wasserman, Vamell, Wren and McClaughry are sentenced to State’s prison for a term of two years each, and Casselman, Geils, McCarthy and Oliver are each mulcted in a fine of SI,OOO. So completely convinced have the public been of the guilt of these conspirators that probably nothing less than a prison sentence for every man of them would have been accepted as satisfying the public sense of justice and adequately indicating the enormity of their offense. The vigor and earnestness which have characterized the prosecution of this ring and the satisfactory verdict obtained in the cases of MoGarigle and McDonald had led the people of this county to look for nothing less than the transfer of every one of them to the Joliet Penitentiary. The verdict which allows four of them, who in the public mind were not less guilty than tbe rest, to escape that fate, does not give full satisfaction. It is sufficient, however, to show that tho law and the courts

are still adequate agencies for the prosecution and punishment of such offenders. The case was given to the jury at 3 o’clock p. m., Friday, and when they retired their first action was to elect A. L. Brown foreman by a unanimous vote. There was very little desultory conversation at first, ballots being at once prepared on the question of guilt or innocence. The first vote on this question resulted 11 to 1 for guilt. One more ballot settled the question of guilt in the case of each defendant, and the matter of the penalty to be affixed came up for consideration. Foreman Brown discouraged general talk on the question and a test ballot was taken. This resulted 9to 3 for three years in the peuitentinry—the heaviest punishment that can be imposed under the statute. The nine jurors who voted for the extreme penalty were very firm in their convictions, and they labored with the other three earnestly and long. Considerable feeling was demonstrated. At last the foreman called for another ballot. It resulted the same as the first, but after some more general discussion and debate in groups two of the three who held out for the imposition of a fine upon all eleven defendants were won over. The third was taken in hand and argued with for nearly an hour. This was J. D. Clark. He stoutly maintained that there was not enough testimony of a character that was worthy of consideration to warrant sending any one of the defendants to the penitentiary. He was ns obstinate in his opinion as were the others ip theirs that three years in the penitentiary was too good for all of them. He would stand a fine for all of them, but no penitentiary. And this was just where matters stood when the juron were informed that the court had reconvened. Finally some of the eleven began to show signs of weakening. They were very much opposed to a disagreement, and in this Juror Clark agreed with them heartily. Others of the eleven became less firm, and the first signs of a compromise began to be apparent. As the others weakened Clark grew firmer as to Geils, Oliver, Casselraan, and McCarthy. It began to look as though if they granted him these four his purpose as to the others might be shaken. Several were at first very much opposed to a compromise on this line; but they at last submitted, stipulated for seven for the penitentiary, and the maximum fine for the other four. Then

there was a season of labor with Clark, who thonght that two years was enough penitentiary for the worst of them. Tne suppers had not yet come, and the jurors were getting hungry. Somebody proposed another ballot, which was agreed to. This, to the snrprise of some and the delight of all, resulted in the agreement as read in court. The report of the foreman was drafted, and it had no sooner be»n signed than a bailiff opened the door and inquired if the gentlemen were ready for their suppers. They fell to with a will, and.,having fated sumptuously with npetites sharpened by the certainty of their speedy release from their long confinement, they sent word that ti ey had found a verdict and forthwith filed into court. At 8:40 the jury notified Chief Bailiff Cahill that they had agreed, and Cahill at once reported to the Judge, who was waiting in his private room. Judge Jamieson took his seat on the bench and ordered the jury brought into court. He also notified Sheriff Matson to bring in the defendants, who had all been kept prisoners in thoir private room or in the vicinity of the courtroom pending the return of the jury. The jury filed in at one door and the defendants at another. The buzz and crush of about fifty newspaper men, who at once 6warmed to the front, created some confusion for a moment. About fifty others, mostly detectives and bailiffs and personal friends of the defendants or jurors, stood up outside the railing. Bailiff Cahill rapped for order when the jury came filing in and were seated, and Judge Jamieson at once began proceedings. “Call the jury, Mr. Clerk,” was his curt order, and the same old form was repeated for the last time. “Are all the defendants present in court, Mr. Sheriff?” was the next question. Mr. Matson was there behind the back of chairs to auswer “Yes.” Turning to the jury, the Judge asked: “Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your verdict?” One or two of them answered “Yes” in an undertone, while Mr. A. L. Brown, the foreman, rose in his place wi h the formal answer, “We have, your Honor,” and handed (he document over to Bailiff Cahill, who in turn passed it up to Clerk Lee. Mr. Lee spread out the document—a sheet of foolscap—and began reading slowly and distinctly: “We, the jury, find the defendants, Adam Ochs, etc.” There was a death-like silence in tho room until the name of Buck McCarthy was reached—“sl,ooo fine”— and then there was a faint attempt at applause from somebody in the rear of the court room. At the conclusion of the reading there was another attempt at applause which was promptly squelched by a rap from the Judge and a rush by the bailiffs aud policemen gathered there. Directly after the verdict was announced each one of the defendants was asked what he thought about it. As the replies were brief tbey are given in full: Casselman—lt is something I didn’t expect. Leyden—l've got nothing to say. Oliver—l’m so much surprised that I don’t know what I do think about it. Wren—l think the verdict is an outrage. Wasserman—l do not care to express an opinion now. McCarthy—l haven’t much to say, but como to me in the morning and perhaps I'll give you something worth printing. Ochs—l don’t care to say a word. Van Pelt—l can live through the two years, and when I get back here I will live long enough to get even with the who have worked so hard to put me in this hole. Varnell—l don’t think anything about the verdict at all. I can’t think. McClaughry—l ain’t saying nothing. I ain’t going to express no opinion. Geils—The verdict is a disappointment to me, but it is no more than I might have expected. Mr. Grinnell and his assistants went back to their room after the verdict, where they were followed by “Buck” McCarthy and one or two others. A reporter congratulated McCarthy on his escape. “What in do you mean?” asked Buck, with an assumption of dire wrath. “I shouldn’t have been fined a goll-darned cent. I say it’s an outrage.” “And I’ll say,” said Mr. Grinnell, “that you should have got three years, Buck, and I make no bones about saying it, either. I would like to see you in McClaughry’s place and McClaughry in yours. You should have got the two years and McClaughry should have got the fine—that is, if either of you had to get off with a fine. ” Buck then left the room. “If it hadn’t been for Clark the verdict would have been all we asked for or could possibly get,” said Mr. Grinnell. “However, we are satisfied under the circumstances. This verdict is, of course, immeasurably better than a disagreement, and a disagreement was the only alternative.” There are no now developments in regard to McGarigle, who at last accounts

was at St. Catherines, Canada. There is no likelihood of securing his extradition. Detective Mooney, in a lengthy interview, tells about his connection with the boodle cases. He says McGarigle’s escape was due to too much parsimony m the management of the case, and that the same is true of the acceptance of Clark as a juror, these being the two big blunders of the whole business.

TTHE ELEVEN CONVICTED BOODLEBS.

W. J. m’oabiole, tbe “cahhiku” of the boodle GANG.