The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-25
PLEADING FOR PERKINS,
A Petition Askihga Writ of Habeas Cor
pus Filed Before Judge Woods.
The Prisoners Attorneys Raise the Question
fJurisdiction-Th Court Defers Render
ing Decision gatil Next Week.

| OF the election conspiracy, fled in his behalf a
petition before Judge Woods, of the United
States Court, asking that writ of habeas corpus
| might issue against Edward Hawkins, United
! States Marshal, and Isaac King, sheriff of Mar
ion county directing them to appear and show
cause why the petitioner should not be dis
charged from custody At o'clock Judge
! Woods took his seat in the courtroom to hear
arguments in the case The matter of the hear
ing had been kept quiet and there were only
about three dozen persons in attendance. The
courtroom looked exceedingly lonesome until
| Mr.. Perkinss attorneys began to arrive. When
| they did begin to come in the procession took on
the appearance of Banquo's progeny as shown to
Macbeth in his meeting with the weird sisters.
| First came Charles W. Smith, then Oscar B.
lloyd, Major Calkns, Major Hendricks and AL
bert Baker, and Elliott Hord bearing law books.
What viii the line stretch out to the crack of doom2
Another yet7-a seventh7-rll see no more;
| And yet the eighth appears who bears glass
| Which shows
| John Duncan and the two lawyers, Bernhamer
and Henry N. Spann.
The petition sets forth in detail the various
| proceedings in the case, and then alleges that:
Your petitioner further shows unto your Honor
that the said pretended proceedings before said
Commissioner from beginning to end, are wholly
void; and that said Commissioner had no juris-
diction in the premises, and that especially said
Commissioner had no power or authority either
to Issue said subpoena, or your petitioner. being
present before said Commissioner in said alleged
proceedings, the said Commissioner had no
power or authority to order or compel your petit
toner to be sworn as witness, or to testify in
said pretended proceedings And your petitioner
further shows that the order made by the said
Commissioner, directed to the said United States
marshal, is wholly void; and that, therefore, it
furnishes no justification for petitioners re-
stralnt and so your petitioner says that beis un-
lawfully detained and imprisoned in the said
Jail, and the defendants refuse to restore him to
liberty"
Captain Ritter filed demurrer alleging in
snficiency of facts in the petition, and raised
the question of the court to try such proceed
ings. holding that they should have come before
Commissioner Van Buren, 1--WE want said
Captain Ritter, ito hold these gentlemen"-his
eye running over the long and imposing array
to the question whether the proceeding before
your Honor is proper one We hold Commits
sioner Van Buren, to be court and the question
of jurisdiction, if it be raised, should be be-
fore him, and that the petitioner must have it
determined before Commissioner Van Buren,"
The Captain quoted from Judge Jeremiah
vana, as deciding the identical question of juris
diction reading the case from rs Pennsylvania,
page 0.
Mr. Smith discussed the question at great
length. referring to nearly twenty law books.
Among other things, he held that even il COM
missioner had the right to commit for contempt
that right and authority was no greater than
that of a justice of the peace, and could not be
in excess of So fine and commitment not to ex-
coed three hours. Mr. Smith said the next ques
W mn q ri ha haho
corpus proceeding was the absence of jurisdic
ton OF the Commissioner. Judge Woods re-
marked that the Commissioner is so far under
the control of the court that if the court was
convinced that the Commissioner had wrongfully
imprisoned man it would release him. Mr..
Smith proceeded to argue the question of the
jurisdiction of the court. Judge Woods
marked that it was well settled that the
power of the federal court to punish per-
sons guilty of election crimes reached
only the federal elections. but how far the
rule reaches and to what acts it applies is ques-
ton for consideration. Mr.. Smith tried to show
that the crimes alleged in the affidavit charging
conspiracy did not affect, and did not tend to
affect, the election of a Congressman, as the
changes on the tally sheets were made only for
the purpose of affecting the result to the cleo
tion Of county coroner and a criminal Judge.
Judge Woods remarked that Section 5511 of the
United States statutes does not specify an intent
to affect the election of Congressman, but if
the act may tend to affect such election the
crime is punishable under the provisions of the
section Mr. Smith replied that the affida-
Wit in the case does not allege that
the change affected the result of the vote on
Congressman Would it be sufficient" asked
Judge Woods, ito allege generally that altera
tions and erasures in the tally sheet had been
made. without making any speciications9" II
do not think it would sir" replied Mr. Smith.
''but confess that | am not much of criminal
lawyer" In concluding, Mr. Smith referred to
| the Maekin case as one in which the crime was
In CT nfh halo oh Cv1tfn
from the Marion county case. Judge Woods re-
marked that one of the allegations in the Mackin
case was that vote for candidate for State
Senator was changed on tally sheet.
Major Calkins followed Mr. Smith in behalf of
Perkins and briefly argued the question of juris
diction on the Interpretation of Sections 5511.
5515 and 5403 of the federal statutes. He claimed
that Judge Blacks decision was given under
the extraordinary conditions arising from the
fugitive slave laws, and that it was recognized as
standing alone IN judicial decisions.
Captain Ritter, in closing the argument,
serted that Judge Blacks decision was supported
by more authorities than all other cases to-
gether that had been cited The counsel on the
other side. after thorough investigation and long
argument had failed to make it apparent that
there was want of jurisdiction. He stood
Judge Blacks decision authority and
desired the court to read it because he regarded
it as the bestconsidered ruling known in law
The law of Indiana Captain Ritter said, is the
only one governing the details of any election in
this State, and that law is supported by the gen.
eral statutes of the United States. A violation
of any duty presented by the Indiana election
| laws is violation of the general provisions of
the act of Congress. In support of this view he
cited an Ohio case, in which it was held that a
violation of the election laws of that State. at
the time of the election of O
Congressman, was violation of the
federal statutes In that case the
allegation was that ballots for township trus-
tee voted for at the time OF a Congressman being
elected were destroyed, although it was not
charged that any of the ballots for the candidates
for Congress were among the number destroyed
In arguing that the tampering with the tally
sheets in the Marion county election tended to
affect the election of the Congressman. he said
that the tally-sheet with the vote on each and
all of the candidates for Office was a thing to be
considered as a whole and in illustration, asked
the court to suppose that a tally sheet with the
vote for no other candidates than those for Con-