The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-29

whole in legal contemplation Is destroyed It's snT
manfestly true that its integrity and force IS evil
dence impaired II the alteration be manifest on
the face of the paper and explanation given from
the signatures of the sgners, the party propos
ing the document evidence of his rights suppose
would be under the necessity of showing aunde that
in other respects the instrument s genuine and true
and under such burden of proof party to close
contest il is easy to understand might lose seat IN
alteration be more skiilful and not apparent
it may be the source of more serI-
Gus uncertainty and trouble. II for instance
in the before suppose the ballots returned
wit the duplicate tally sheets lost destroyed or
other ballots substituted which would show a differ
ent result in respect to Congressman, and. IN adds
ton suppose that the other tay-sheets with which
these altered ones ought to correspond be found TO
have been altered in respect to the congressional vote
is it not manifest that in case of disputes each
alteration would be obstacle in the way OF de-
terining the true result of the election because each
tally-sheet would tend to discredt the otheri Aud
this would be the effect in respect to Congressman as
we'll in respect to other officers To iilustrate
further: BY this l understand that some mem
bers of the board of canvassers account OF appar
ent changes in these tallysheets and poboolrs re-
fused to sign, and others signed under protest. tho
certificate of the result of the election IN Marion
county including candidates for Congress well as
for all local offices. This actual tangible effect
upon the election and if other members of the board
Of canvassers had acted in the way the vote OF
Marion county in respect to Congressman might not
have been declared wthort further proceedings and
possibly not without litigation. But the suggestion
has been made that the affidavit here shows tho
thentcty and truth of the altered papers in to
the election of Congressman and therefore, suppose
ton to the contrary is inadmissible.
The plain answer to this is that the accused
charged with having done forbidden things which,
explained impair tSe proof in respect to the congress
truth of the matter may have been discovered or de-
termined before the formal charge was framed and
the prosecution instituted
Going further into the discussion. am clear
that this affidavit charges oense offenses fully
within the rghtful cognizance of Congress, and am
equally clear that the provisions of Sections 55l and
5512 applicable, and it the charge made is In
any respect defective the fault of form rather than
of substance, and affords ground for raising the
qur stion of jurisdiction.
Whether not Section 5403 could be made to
apply am not sure, because uncertain whether any
of these taysheets pollbooks had been deposited
with officer in public Office within the mean
missioner not having been without jurisdiction. the
petitioner, of course, had right. that ground.
length of time for which the commissioner COM
mtted the petitioner. do not think there
of power. By Section 1477 of Indiana Revised
Statutes 1881. which section was enacted in 1858.
justice of the peace empowered to subpoena
witnesses and enforce their attendance by attachment
and fine not exceeding FIVE dollars To enforce order
< by fine not exceeding five dollars and i'm pris-
onment not exceeding three hours By Section 1886.
enacted at the time there given to justices
jurisdiction co-extensive with the county to admin
lister oaths issue subpmnas and attachments for
tempt in any cause pending before them, or in any
matter where they may be authorized to take testi
mony." But in 1879, by act designed apparently
10 regulate the entire subject of contempts of court
it was enacted that every person who, being sworn
TO testify witness in any court of record in any
trial proceeding therein. shall refuse to testify
touching the same; or who, being required by any
court to be sworn in such trial or proceeding
shall refuse to take an oath or affirmation
therein 4 shall be deemed guilty of a direct
contempt thereof and in the act it is provided
that punishment for contempts of court under the
may be by fine Imprisonment. both, the fine not
TO exceed $500 and the imprisonment not to extend
beyond the term of three months (Rev. Stats 1881,
Sections 1006 and 1O1O)
These proceedings in my judgment define the pow
of justices of the in this respect because
their courts courts OF record and consequently
applicable to United States commissioners when
engaged examining officers in the States The
necessary conclusion is that the petitioner was not
un!awfully committed, and that he be remanded un-
less he is willing to purge himself of contempt,
in which he may be taken before said commits
sioner for that purpose.
When the decision was given Mr.. Oscar g.
Hord gave notice of an appeal for Mr.. Perkins
to the United States Circuit Court This will
take the case before Judge Gresham, in Chicago.
and decision will not probably be reached until
next week. During this period of watching and
waiting Mr.. Perkins will be serving his Jail SEN
tence for contempt.
Charles L. Holstein, attorney for the defense
in the Orange county cases. also gave notice OF
exceptions to the ruling of Judge Woods ap@>aa|
appeal to the Circuit Court in hehalf- of Ills eli
entS.