The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-15
THE COUGAR SANDER SUIT
A Resume of the Points Made for the
Plaintiff and Defense.
Eteported Reasons for the Existence of the
Case-The Drift of Public Opinion at
this Juncture.

The accusations brought forward against
Mrs. Cougar are all limited to the period of
her active participation in politics, and they
increase in gravity as they approach the eli
max of her bitter campaigns against the
liquor and gambling interests in Lafayette.
Those who have followed the testimony
closely will observe that the alleged criminal
acts on her part are closely associated with,
or are contemporaneous with, her war against
selling beer at the fair grounds, or some raid
on the saloons, or some attack on the city
government. And naturally the worst
charges come to the surface coincident with
the elimination of the whirlwind campaign
of last fall. She and several other ladies of
the W. C. 7. u. made speeches in favor of
temperance candidates for the Legislature,
and most warmly espoused the cause of Cap
tain Wallace, Republican candidate in the
Lafayette district. The Cougar campaign
was conducted independently of the regular
Republican canvass, and was extremely
bitter. Mrs. Cougars course created disaf-
lection in the Republican ranks, the Demo-
Gratis rallied the liquor men against her, max
ing most effective use of her indiscreet and
violent utterances, and after q campaign OF
almost unexampled bitterness, Captain Wal
lace was defeated by forty-three votes, while
other Republican candidates on the ticket
were elected.
Thu Democrats, wild with exultation, car
ried their civilizations over the defeat of the
prohibition element to the extremes of in
decency. A few nights after the election
they paraded the streets with a huge cartoon
in which Captain Wallace lay PROSTATE, the
successful Democratic candidate standing
with his foot on Wallace's throat, and Mrs.
Cougar, half dressed, was represented as
pointing to Wallace and saying, II did it."
NJ, L,lf - xu111I y rt ~ Il ~ va p1h1iO y ftor.
ance to things that have only been whispered
in low circles, and Mrs. Cougars name was
banded about the street as would be that OF
a common adventures.
Angered by this and by certain move
ments of the police, Mrs. Cougar, in a pub
lie speech, made a venomous attack on the
Democratic mayor, on Mandler, and all con-
nected with the city government. She fol-
lowed this up by q scathing, reckless article
in her paper, in which she portrayed the
character of three suppositious men, typical
of the politicians that had played traitor to
Captain Wallace and false to the temperance
cause, or of the Democratic politicians who
had traduced her. This article limited at
Tileness and corruption, at miserable homes
and unhappy wives and children, and
marked papers containing the article were
sent, on Saturday, Nov. Is, to a score or
more of prominent men. or to their families,
and Lafayette for one day was in a tumult.
1t is but fair to say that Mrs. Cougar denies
that she ever sent one Of these marked pa
pers. But they were sent, and the effect was
FOR the moment to rouse public sentiment
against her.
While public feeling was in this excited
state the final blow was struck. The next
morning it was reported that Mandler and
three or four other men had seen Mrs. Gou-
gar and Captain Wallace go to the office of
the latter before 8 o'clock, and remain with
out lights until 1905. There are evidences
that the accusations were brought forward
without much thoughts as to how they would
bear searching examination, for the mere
purpose of soaring Mrs. Cougar into what
her enemies considered a proper state of SUBJ
lection. But she was not frightened, and she
declined to treat with her enemies. Against
the advice of many of her friends she brought
suit for SANDER.
After the preliminary steps had been taken
several weeks were given to the work OF prep
aration. The woman having deted all the
Interests combined against her, a determined
effort was made to build up such a case as
would crush her for all time. The police of
other cities, the liquor interests throughout
the State, were asked to do their part in the
work, and the goings and comings of a
woman who had travelled the country over,
and whose face was familiar to railroad men,
hackmen, train-boys, and not a few hotel
men, we're subjected to the closest scrutiny.
After much preparation on the part of the
defense the trial opened. The first contest
was over the question whether the defense
would be allowed to introduce proof. run
ming back through many years, with purpose
to show in the intimacies with Wallace and
Others that Mrs. Cougar possessed a depraved
and adulterous disposition. The attorneys
for the plaintiff objected to this course as
most monstrous, as, If allowed, it would com-
pei them, without a moments notice, to
meet other and different charges as base as
the first and located at times and places re-
mote. They argued that the defendantshould
be confined to proof tending to show that
plaintiff was guilty at time and place charged
in defendants answer. In urging this point
the attorneys for plaintiff admitted that there
was no occasion to prove an adulterous dis
position, and publicly stated in court that if
it was proven that Wallace and Mrs. Cougar
were in Wallace's office as charged, they
would admit that they were there for ndul-
ferrous and unlawful purpose, and concede
that they were guilty as charged.
This point is stated with some particulari-
ty, because it is at the bottom Of much of the
spirit shown by the lawyers engaged in the
case, and by the bar of Lafayette. The court
held that the associations and acts of the
plaintiff and Wallace. including any other
acts of criminaiity than those mentioned,
we're legitimate subjects of proof. This per-
mitted the defendant to range over the whole
past life OF the plaintiff, and under this
ruling the defense spent six weeks of time in
introducing evidence as to prior acts and as
5ociations of the parties, and only touched on
events relating to the main charge of Nov. 10
q few days prior to closing the case.
The ruling of the court that permitted this
came in connection with another, which
ruled out any testimony by the plaintiff to
show conspiracy on the part of those en-
gagged in prosecuting her. Before l left
Chicago I satisfied myself that on both these
rulings the bar of Chicago was against the
court-on the conspiracy ruling almost
unanimously. Those who doubt this may
easily verify my statement. When L came
here I found lawyers more reticent, but of
those expressing an opinion the majority
were against the court.
THE CASE FOR THE DEFENSE.
For six weeks the defense had the field to