The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-28

for the bags lower down MIR. Morrison says the
Chair had fret said, THAT may al be. put the
law says that must canvass the returns as
they before u.s. and we have no power 10
hear evidence touching anything
Mr.. Morrison--I think you mistaken about that.
and want TO utter my protest:
Mr.. McLain-fou established rule TINS Inornln 3
that If the papers had been out OF the hands OF
the inspector any time you would send Tor the bag
and take the tally Of that That was the case OF
The Chair-Tn the ease of Mr.. Landers, he had no
Mp. McIafnMIn the case Of Mr. Myers, he had the
papers, but you sent for the Dag.
There has been some little conflict in the evil
deuce as to whether Myers mad bis papers or not.
You see here il was stated openly and publicly
in the board that he did have his papers, and
there appeared to be no denial of il.
Mr. McHugh--We adopted q rule when we began to
take the tally that is before here. and have
right TO 20 into the report in the clerks Office.
There Was kissing, and then the chair ruled
against the Kissing.
do anything in the wey Of sending for papers.
because OF this previous rule that they had
adopted.
Mr.. Morrison: 1 am here now and a member
OF the board, and have right to speak: and
pose TO do it; and want to say TO you this
The Char-There is nothing before the house.
Mr. Norrison--I talking about the returns.
The Chair-There can be no motion excepting the
calling of these returns.
the board that we send for these returns at the
quest of Mr. Schmidt. member of the Board of
knows, etc.
Now there Mr.. Schmidt, in strict accordance
with the letter of the statute, had requested that
his returns be sent for. The chair ruled that he
now come to the action of the chair in refer
ence to Mr.. Many Mr. Morrison in his previous
statement had described how the changes were
made.
voice-He did not say anything of the kind.
Well. that is II; il is right there said Morrison.
The Chair-You have no evidence of that kind here.
Mr. Mr. not
The Chair--That is simply hearing evidence and we
have power to do that.
Now Mr. Bernhamer had called Mr.. Many up
there 10 represent the opposition. Mr.. Many 10
called TO state what the tally-sheet itself
showed. The Chair says that is only hearing
testimony. In other words. the Chair ruled
that that board of eighty eight men would nor
DO allowed TO hear Mr.. Many or ANYBODY else
state what the tally-sheet itself showed. The
law says they shall canvass these papers. I'm
less the memo ers of the board permitted to
hear from somebody what the papers them
selves show they could find it out only by going
each in turn by himself and looking at it.
Mr.. Many was called up there in the beginning
of the meeting as check upon any wrong, &C
cordng to the theory OF Mr.. BerDhamer. and
yet when he is asked to be allowed to state how
the fact was Mr.. Bernhamer rules that that is
hearing evidence. And that occurred two
going further into the minutae, l say
to you that il Mr. Bernhamer did these
things in good faith, and under mistake of
take, he is not TO be convicted unless there is
other evidence connecting him with the con-
spiracy; but If he aid not do these things hon
estly, if he did it for the purpose Of enabling
the parties who had concocted this scheme to
get these papers through the board. and acted
with that view, then you ought % find him
guilty-you have a right to find him guilty.
Now observe, IL he acted in good faith, did not
intend any wrong, supposed he was bound down
by parliamentary rules and statutory rules. had
a mistaken idea OF what the rules meant, was
not intending to help this wrong and did not
know OF it. or was not intending to help it, why.
then he Is not guilty. Men are not to be
but if men occupying positions of
trust, as he did, avail themselves of
their positions to force the preparation of
wrong and help its completion it is the proper |
province of courts and juries to hold them |
sponsible for their acts If you have reasonable |
doubts on this subject Mr.. Bernhamer is entitled |
doubt your action will be accord
inely.
There remains one other man, whose case
have not mentioned, who is on trial; that is Mr..
Matter. Now Mr. Matters papers were
sounted correctly. They were changed. as it
now appears, and YOU are presented with
alternative Of finding that they were changed
while under his control or that they have been
changed since that board canvassed them Mr.
Mattler explained to you that he had the custody
Of these papers, and how he kept custody, and
be denies Mr.. Perkinss story. The papers ap-
pear to have beer changed, as Perkins saws they
we're. That appearance is now very plain on
The paper, especially the paper where Mr.. |
Ayress vote was added and afterwards scratched
but Mr.. McLaiu testified that
be stood there by Mr.. Bernbamer
5he canvass was made. Mr.. Many testfes more
strongly than Mr.. McLaip, that he was there read
ug the canvass sheets and that he did not OBJ
serve them, and that he thinks he would have
observed them IL the changes had been there.
Now then, the changes were made before the
board met or they were not. may
Jay that IL they were made before the canvass
ng board met then Mr.. Perkins's story is cor
and you would be justified at least il
Tot compelled. TO find Mr.. Matter guilty. if the
harges were made before the canvass Mr..
dsttlers attorneys are insisting that they
we're not made before the canvass and that
he fact that Captain Many did not
discover these changes and Mr. Nc
Iain did not observe them, establishes the fact
hat they were not made. Mr. NcNutt, in his |
peninR speech suggested to You that there could
. question Of the clerk of this court, and that
'hile they were in his custody they were safe,
MT suggested that there were several days in
'hich the papers remained in the clerks Office
appears that they remained from Friday or
saturday until the next Monday afternoon,
'hen they were taken possession of by this |
ourt, and Mr.. McLain has explained to YOU I'M
er what custody they remained and now they |
Tere locked up aud the keys in his control. But
the argument made here that position seems =
} be abandoned or at least another position is
lgrested; that they were changed when taken
At for exhibition before the grand jury Of this
,urt at the second investigation that they
ade. Now then as to wheth er that is probable
be suggestion is that Captain Ritter or
mebody connected with him did it,
on asked 20 find upon the evidence-at
asst you asked to raise a reasonable
oubt in respect to Mr. Matter on that sugges. {
on. IL you not asked to ind that some !
'dy 10 guilty. you asked to find reasonable
'ubt In respect to the guilt of Mattler. The
lily comment propose to make on that, leav- !
e IL an a question of fact for you, is TINS: On
rs sheet, where Mr.. Irwins vote appears it is /
ain enough now, we look at it, at there have I
zen erasures, and then tallies re-entered But {
'u take the whole page and there are other \
aces where changes appear quite as evident l
ID there Is nothing IN 1T that at once excites ;
'servation, even If your suspicious were +
o1sed. IL as Mr.. Many was he had to be keen +
e count of each tally the count went on &
It'll he got down that point; bur K
the other page where Mr. Ayres's vote c
pears, and where the additions were S
ade these marks are now oaite ;
slolel Were they as visible st the time Mr.. ;