The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-26

proved by Maj. James L. Mitchell. of irreproach-
able character He closed by showing the
worthlessness OF evidence as to reputation when
as was gwen by interested in Tb3s
one It Was in the interests as of the R roushs.
toughs and criminals of Marion county. II a
citizen of Indiana has certainty that his vote
will be counted as he cast it why keep up the
machinery of elections. why vote9 When one
undermines suffrage, the dearest right a
has it is to destroy projection one can give to
home and property.
John W Buskirk. for defendant Bernhamer,
said the court got its Jurisdiction not from the
act done. but from a violation of laws applying
to an election at which a congressman was to be
elected. But to give the charge effect it must
apply to the vote cast for congressman. The
tally-sheets had been changed. 1t was sought
to prove conspiracy by the act
itself, but as to an actual showing
but the statement of Perkins. 1t is only by in
ference that the jury could connect Bernhamer
or Matter with the alleged offense, but there is
evidence enough from Hisey and Matter con-
Wet Perkins of perjury The corroboration Of
Perkins is only that which convicts him of the
crime but 1t does not touch the charge of con-
spiracy. There is nothing in il except that
Perkins changed the sheets himself In a els
guised hand or procured some else to do If.
The evidence shows that he only had knowledge
of the crime and that some one perhaps, assisted
him, but it does not establish the charge the de-
PENDANTS are the guilty parties The tally
sheets could have been changed by any one else
than Sullivan, Coy. Span or the other de-
PENDANTS. The fact that Bernhamer ruled as
the board had directed is taken as confederation,
but it was necessary that some method should
be adopted when DISCREPANCIES occurred be-
tween the tally sheets and poll-book certificate.
1t was evident at the outset that the papers were
in bad condition, either from careIessness de-
sign; vet the government would have the jury
believe that Span would desert the interest of
his client by giving false opinion. in order to
assista conspiracy gotten up by Sam Perkins, if
one man can form a conspiracy. The PROPOSE
ton of Mr.. Span was that the tally sheet
the original paper. the certificate being only a
copy. Upon that be urged from law and reason
the original paper should govern. For this there
is the high authority of an electoral mmission,
which said there could be going behind
turns. The strongest evidence that there was
conspiracy lies IN the fact the board attest
it did in following the tally sheet. and in not
relaxing the rule in regard to them even when
forgeries were apparent.
Mr.. Buskirk asserted that some OF the sheets,
particularly Matters, were changed after the
canvass had been made. Who did it he could
not say, hut suspicion could attach to the
clerk of the court. Yet those sheets were in
possession of another person, who took them for
a while from the clerks custody to the county
grand jury. He intimated it was thought neces-
sary in making out to have other sheets
changed, for the alterations in the Hisey sheet
alone would not that purpose. Had the
Matter paper come before the Board in its pres
ent condition the fact that it had been changed
and changed again to its original figures would
have been noticed. At this point Mr.. Buskirk
stopped. He will resume the argument this
morning