The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-04
THE MON. ACTION OF THE GRAND JURY.

A painful surprise was caused yesterday by
the United States grand jury reporting to the
court that they had no further business, and
asking to be discharged without presenting
an indictment in the case of the Marion
county election frauds. There had been scrae
speculation as to how many indictments might
be found and who the incriminated persons
might be, but it had not occurred to anybody
conversant with the facts as possible that the
grand jury could fail to find at least some in
dictments Their action is a lame and i'm
potent conclusion, and stamps the men respon-
sibla for it as unfit to be intrusted with any
| public duty. Petit juries have done much by
| their ridiculous verdicts to bring the trial by
| jury into disfavor, but the grand jury has
still been regarded as one of the safeguards
Of liberty and law. Local courts have often
been charged with being swayed by partisan
bias or popular clamor, but it has been sup
posed that every part of the machinery
'of the United States Court was far re-
moved from any such influence, and that
here, OF least, if nowhere else, the law could
always find vindication and it's violators
get their deserts. But now we have not a
petit but grand jury, not of a State but of
the federal court, ignoring the most con-
elusive evidence Of fraud and refusing to find
an indictment, although they had not merely
| the proof that crime had been committed,
but the very body Of the crime itself in their
possession. How body of men of common
sense and common honesty could, under the
| circumstances, reach sucha conclusion is past
comprehension. That a crime was committed
nobody denies-at least nobody did deny it
before this action Of the grand jury. From
the day the votes were canvassed and the nat
ure of the fraud exposed it was conceded by
all that somebody had perpetrated bold and
| Infamous crime. The altered tally-sheets
brought the evidence directly to the senses.
Anybody could, and many, including the
members Of the grand jury did see this pal
pable proof Of fraud. There before the eyes
We're the erasures, the traces of obliterated
tallies, the hole in the paper caused by
the operators haste or awkwardness,
the altered footings, the changes in differ
ent ink and in different hand by which
the result of the election was changed.
This evidence alone was conclusive that a
crime had been committed. But it was sup
plemented before the grand jury by other evil
dence Mr.. Lorenz Schmidt. an honest man
and Democrat, has said again and again that,
as inspector of the election, he intrusted the
tally-sheets to person whom he would name
when compelled to, and that they were altered
after they left his, Mr.. Schmidt's, hands. Mr..
Schmidt testified before the grand jury, and
it is fair to assume that he gave the name Of
the person to whom he intrusted the tally
Sheets and who was undoubtedly an actor in
or very nearly related to, the fraud. The
chain of evidence before the grand jury was
complete that crime had been committed
and identifying, at least, one of the parties to
the crime. Why was not this person indicted
to say nothing Of his partners in the infamy,
who could very easily have been brought to
justice if the grand jury had done its duty?
The fact is, there is reason to believe there
never was an honest intention on the
part of the officers and the majority
of the grand jury to probe
the matter to the bottom and to let no guilty
man escape. Judge Woods did his whole duty
in the premises fearlessly and we'll, but with
him the performance of duty stopped. The
district attorney utterly failed to perform his.
He did not even do it in perfunctory man
ner OF pretend to do it at all. He turned the
case over to an inexperienced assistant and
then deliberately abandoned his duty and his
honor and went about other business. Per-
haps his action was hint for that of the
J grand jury, and perhaps they got the cue
from some other quarter. Ordinarily, it is
not proper and never should be important to
know the politics of a grand jury In this
case it is. 1t is significant that a majority of
the jury were Democrats and the foreman an
extreme Democratic partisan. During the
sessions of the grand jury he was in constant
communication with local Democratic poll
ticians and fraternized with them from the
beginning to the end of the so-called
investigation Under these circumstances,
perhaps, no other result could have been ex-
pected than that which has happened, and yet
the grand jury's public act of self-stultifca-
ton came as painful surprise. No wonder
Judge Woods was indignant, and dashed them
as only convicted criminals have been dashed
| In his court room before His intimatinn tia