The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-06
THE DIsBARMENT OF BERNHAMER.
Democrats Concerned in the Fraudulent Work
Shy About Speaking of the Case.

The Democrats who were particularly inter
ested in the late United States grand jury pro-
ceedings shun any expression in regard to the
petition asking for the disbarment of W. F. A.
Bernhamer. 1t is suggestion of further dan
ger only equaled by the alarm they felt when
the question was referred to court of which
Democrats have a wholesome fear. Their de-
nunciaton of Judge Woods for mercilessly rep
rimanding the jurors continues, and it is about
the only relief they have. The more discreet do
not commit themselves to any criticism, but
there can be detected in what little they say
that the lash has left it's stripes What
business" said member OF the gang has
judge to lecture grand juryq The jurors said
they had no further business to transact, and
the judge ought to have discharged them with
out any remarks. He has no control of the jury,
and it is none of his concern"
"But Judge has, to certain extent, control
over grand jury"
mo, he has not, and think his remarks were
an outrage" but the fiery partisan was quieted
by instances cited by a member of his own
party, and one as badly. inoculated with polit-
zeal venom as he is.
Yesterday few Of Bernhamers political
friends tried to give the petition for disbarment
something of n jocose character. HE has not
had case in that court for ten years." said one,
land l doubt if ne is really on the rolls of the
court. Bernhamer pleading before United
States judge would be something in the nature
of joke" While certain of his political breth-
rem take this view of it. others are denouncing
DR.. Wagner. 1t is worth noting that no man
connected with the Investigation of these frauds
is more soundiy abused than he is. The Demo
Gratis of the gang have singled him out as a
target for epithets that would support good
fowl hal Iy1a w1nn 70 to1yn Al
demnation off the Democratic jurors, they have
gone so far as to say that the Doctor
Is the man whom the jury talked
OF indicting for perjury. This is a calumny of
the worst kind, as the proposition to indict the
witness whose testimony was regarded as false
met no. favor from the Democrats. Foreman
Ochiltree, when asked concerning the question
submitted to the Judge whether the jury could
indict one of it's own witnesses for testifying
falsely, said, II know nothing at all about it.
The question came unexpectedly, and was not
considered by the jury" AS proof that there
was leakage of testimony from the jury room
this incident will serve Democrat who had
been before the jury met another witness and,
with uncaled-for citation, remarked, "Well, our
evidence agrees to a dot"
The New York Times has this to say about the
partisan jury: Political decentralization in Indi
ana seems to have reached a well-nigh hopeless
pitch. Partisanship has invaded the grand-jury
room at indianapolis in that malignant and
shameless form that shields the most outrageous
frauds upon the ballot-bo The grand jury,
which was charged with the investigation of the
notorious and undeniable frauds and forgeries In
Marion county, refused to ind any indictments.
1t was divided on party lines, and the
Democratic members consulted with
politicians in regard to their proceedings and
unquestionably ignored the most conclusive evil
1ence. The foreman Of the jury went so far as
to make bitterly partisan speech at public
meeting while the proceedings we're pending, in
which he avowed the most INSCRIPTIONS views
as to the contested cases in the Legislature.
Judge Woods departed from the usual custom of
courtesy in discharging grand iuries, and gave
the men before him an unmerciful scoring for
their fragrant disregard of their sworn duty"
A citizen of Noblesville, speaking of the grand
jury failure to return an indictment, says: st
is no surprise, so far as of the federal grand
Jurors from this county is concerned, that the
tally-sheet forgers were not indicted. He is a
renegade Republican who was elected to the
Legislature By the Republicans Of Hamilton
county and was in 1884. candidate before
Republican convention for nomination for Rep
resentative. In the convention he pledged his
hearty support to the nominee. Thomas E.
Boyd, gallant soldier, nominated by the
unanimous vote Of the convention. Carson, for
he is the juror referred to- thus proved false
to his pledge. He not only did not support Mr.
Boyd, but on the contrary. announced himself
as "a peoples candidate" for Representative.
The small vote he received shows concusively
how he is regarded by the voters of his county.
He then protested great love for the Democracy,
and two years later went into Democratic con.
vention in the vain hope of procuring romina-
ton at the hands of the Democrats. They had
not sufficient faith in him to trust him, so they
satisfied him by making him chairman of the
convention. AS to Mr.. Huston, the other grand
juror from county. he is radical Demo
crat, and with such strong party prejudicss that
it would be difficult for him to see anything
criminal in any method adopted by Democrats
to get possession Of Office"