The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-11-23
DUTY OF THE GRAND JURY.
Judge Woods Is Asked Questions That
Indicate Hitch in the Inquiry.
lie Tells the Jury that They Must Seek Evil
dence for Indictment and Not for the
Defense of Suspected Persons.

Before resuming the investigation of election
frauds yesterday afternoon the United States
grand jury returned to court six additional in
dictments of other than local interest. Among
them were one or two relating to violations of
the election laws OF this nun Der one referred
to the charges of illegal voting against Wm
Cahill, of St. Joseph county, who is now it jail
He voted, it is said, too often. Writs of arrest
have not, yet, been issued in the remaining
indictments But some of the jury had a few
questions pertinent to the mode of procedure in
examining certain cases they wanted answered
1t seems from their character there has been a
difference of opinion among the jurors as to the
extent and character of testimony to be received
regarding election frauds illegal voting, chang
ing tally sheets and the like. Juror Tomlinson,
of Logansport had with him these questions in
writing as follows:
]. Is it the duty of federal grand jury TO investi-
gate other than the government side of case?
2 Has federal grand jury any power. such as a
petit jury has, to investigate the defendants side!
g. Can one more of the members of federal
grand jury exclude any witnesses from testifying
whom he they may have to believe is guilty
OF crime, as to which he proposes to testify!
A. Should federal grand jury exclude the evidence
or all persons concerning whom they may have pre-
sumptive evidence of being guilty of crime which
they are investigatnga
g. If there is evidence of strong presumptive
character that crime has been committed by certain
individuals should the persons thus implicated be al
lowed, under any circumstances, to core before a
federal grand jury and testify upon the subject
t. Is there any difference in the rules governing
the kind and character of evidence before federal
grand jury and grand jury under State awsl If
so, what is the differencea
Judge Woods considered these inquiries care
fully, and in replying regarded them all as bear
ing upon the same point-that Of procuring evil
dence for the defense. He laid down in his
Instructions that the grand jury had nothing to
do with any side of the question but that which
would justify the return Of an indictment. or a
dismissal of the subject. It was not necessary
to prepare defense. That did not come within
the province of the iury's investigation. All the
Jurors could do would be to consider the govern
ments case, and, If the testimony was sufficient
to return an Indictment The de-
tense was matter of public
trial. In excluding admitting evidence
however, the majority should rule. The few
ought not to overrule the many. Continuing
his instructions to the jury, he said that when
the poll-books. certificates and tally sheets of
the Marion county election came to be examined
the utmost pains should be taken so that no
question could arise on their not being in the
same condition when returned to the
county as they were when they were
brought into the possession of the government
In counting the ballots they would find them
strung, and in removing them from the string
one at time should be taken and when counted
placed at once upon another string
After Judge Woods had answered the written
questions submitted to him, one of the jurors
asked if the grand jurors could indict witness
for perjury upon false evidence which he had
given them The judge was not ready to give
an opinion and took the question under advise
ment. This calls to mind like feature in the
Mackin/ prosecution. at Chicago where his in
dlctment and trial in the United States Court
was followed by an indictment for perjury. in
the States court, on account of the
difference in his evidence on trial from
that he gave the grand jury. John Evans
one of the Cincinnati vioators of election laws
in 1883, told the county grand jury one thing
and directly the opposite when he was called on
switching ballots. He was indicted for perjury,
but the prosecuting attorney did not push the
case, as the trial jury found him guilty on the
ably not close before Thursday, and not then if
| an examination of the tally sheets, poll books
and certificates is made. AS to this feature, it
has not been settled how far the Investigation
will go; whether it will be thorough in counting
the ballots or a superficial comparison of the
sheets There is a probability of sensational in
formation ahead.
After the jury retired to its room it began
proceedings by examining witnesses called to tes-
tify as to alleged election frauds in Fayette
county. There were in waiting several witness
es in the Marion county case, among whom were
Moses @. McLain Ferd Winter, DR.. Wagner and
others, but their testimony will not be given un-
til to-day.