An application for a change of venue from Johnson county was made, heard and granted, but two weeks’ time was consumed in the selection of a place, Cheyenne finally being chosen. The attorneys for the prosecution objected very strongly to having the trial carried to Cheyenne on the grounds that that city was the head center of the old dominating cattle influence, and the feeling of sympathy worked up in favor of the accused, many of whom had been prominent in political, business and social circles, would prevent an unbiased hearing of the case. This idea was fought by the lawyers for the defense, and many witnesses were called on either side. When Cheyenne was decided upon the opinion in many parts of the state was freely expressed that the cattlemen had won, and that the trial would be a howling farce. It was honestly believed by many people that the tentacles of the old gang were so securely fastened in the people of that city that they could control the findings of juries as they had in the past shaped the legislation of the state. From that time forward interest in the case lessened among the masses and they began to agitate the question of how to counteract this un-American system of intrigue and conspiracy that was so rapidly undermining our republican form of government. The prisoners were returned to Cheyenne, put in charge of Sheriff A. D. Kelly, and ostensibly quartered in Keefe’s hall, instead of the jail. The first night after their arrival the cattlemen proper of the gang were given a champagne banquet at the club house by their white cap friends, and it was a night of high revelry. During the entire term of their waiting for the sitting of the court the cattlemen slept at their homes or the hotels, and the entire party took their meals where they chose, and had the run of the town day and night. A full list of guards was employed at the expense of Johnson county, and the prisoners were supposed to be kept in their quarters continually, save when they were escorted to their meals. The truth of the situation is well and fittingly illustrated by the following incident: A newspaper man wanted to interview some of the confined men one evening about 8 o’clock. He found three guards on duty at the front door, and asked to be shown in to see the prisoners. He was escorted inside but found no one present. Being somewhat surprised, he asked how this happened. The reply was, “The guards are on duty, sur, and if yez wants to foind the prisners, yez must go where they are; oi’ll not foind ’em for yez.”