The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-02-26

time no one questioned the Jurisdiction OF the
Section AIS of the State law. regarding the
board OF canvasers. was not quoted in the
charge Judge Woods enunciated his own
views, which the attorney said were antagonIstic
TO those OF the Justice that matter The
Justices construction thereof had a bearing on
the case. but 1t was not read while the quota
ton concerning the jurisdiction was, and tended
to mislead the jury
Continuing, Judge McNutt argued his objec-
ton to the judges charge in referring to the
committee or one hundred having been
ganized Ito ferret out these crimes It was q
statement virtually that crime had been COM
nas1esa and the one with which the defendants
n&E. Deen charged. The attorney of this COM
msztse had been appointed a deputy county
prosecutor to assist in the county grand jury in
vestieatlon of these forgeries 1t was proved on
trial, and further that Ritter sought to convict
one OF these defendants alone. In this he made
the agreement with Perkins to testify against
Coy aud not to tell all he knew. 1t was shown
In the trial that Perkins touched the line and
swore to only what asked him before that
jury. In this there a conspiracy to convict
Coy at the expense of truth. justice and decency
lie did not complain of the committee of one
hundred The organization was lawful and it's
purpose just. but he did complain OF its behavior
One OF the mem bers of that committee was fore
man of the United States grand jury that re-
turned the Indictment against these men. At
the trial he testified he was member of the
committee and gave money to assist The de-
Tense mad much right to prove nspiracy
against Coy as the prosecution did that
Coy was In conspiracy against the govern
given by Judge Woods in his charge.
The rest of the mornings argument pertained
to Bernhamer. against whom, it was said, not a
sciatiila of evidence had been offered TO show tina:
he was cognizant of a conspiracy. This led to
recital of all the incidents connected with the
canvass Of the votes. in which Bernhamer ap-
peared as doing his duty, and according to law,
as he understood it from those competent to adj
wise. occurred in the speeches of Henry N.
Span and Jno. B. Elan before the board who
the attorney claimed agreed as to the interprs-
tation of law that the taily-sheets should gov
In the afternoon Judge McNutt referred to
charges and counter-charges Of political frauds
being committed by both parties for years past.
He admitted with shame for his State that there
was truth in them. But Cows acts he claimed,
were not to rerpetrate frauds but to prevent
them. Coy attempted TO do this when he heard
Of the Carnahan circular. and the reference in
the judges charge to his sending Eden to inter
the animus of the judge. who was more bitter
against this defendant than the attorneys for
for the Judge to tell the jury that without this
incident there was other evidence against Coy.
To make these statements was out of the
province of the court for they had the effect to
prejudice the minds of the jurors.
Rsciting the incident of the telegram to juror
Messick informing him that his mother was
dying, he said that it natural for q mans
love to respond to the influence of such news
beyond all consideration for other things If
there was a man who would not do so he would
not have him on jury to try dog. He knew
men say they could not be moved by such cir
cumstances, but he did not believe it. It was a
cruel wrong to the defendants to allow that
telegram to go into the jury-room. but he'd id not
wish to be understood criticising the motives
of the Judge in permitting it to he done. Yet
no other view could be taken of the telegram
than that 1t operated as a menace to the jurors
for several of them knew that it had been re-
ceived, and IL would be unnatural if they did
not have sympathy for Messick and respond
to his silent appeal to be released so he could go
to the death bed of the woman who gave him
birth. There stood the minority and here Mes
sick. who says from the outset he voted with the
majority. They came 10 him through fellow
feeling. not he to them; but had he been of the
minority he could just well. for the same
reason have asked the majority to come to him.
The judge closed with reference to the drinking
charged against the jurors while the verdict was
pending. and rounded off with finished appeal
for justice for men who had been convicted of a
crime that did not exist
The argument was then pursued by District
Attorney Sellers for the government, who said
vigorous efforts had been made to impress the
Justice with the belief that serious errors had
been committed in the court below but out of
the long list the objections of which the court
in regard to the suficiency of the indictment and
the other as referred to the rulings of the judge
below. No one need seek further than Section
551l to establish tho crime 1t fully covers the
case. 1t was passed with Section 5512 and 55l5
by tho highesr law-making power in the land.
and he was surprised that any one should quss-
ton the jurisdiction they convey, and which has
been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the
United States. But if that section is not
enough Section 5512 will provide q law upon
Your Honor" said Major Holstein. II would
like to have the government take some definite
position"
ITO proceed with the argument in his own way"
Simply calling the courts attention to these
sections, Mr.. Sellers continued. sufficient to
show that the indictment IS valid. The indict- |
ment does not charge the forging of tally Sheets
or that they were to be forged, but it is, that |
these men conspired to procure the inspectors |
m pryyr
upon them by the State law. The intent amounts |
to but little which must be based on an afima- |
tive act. Hence the matter charged under these |
sections is an offense complete in itself |
and the inspectors omission of duty was |
in failing to safely keep the papers by giving |
them into the hands Of the consprators. The |
two words deposit and deliver that occur in the |
statute upon which the defense lays great stress |
are pregnant with duty to be performed. To |
deposit Webster says. means the Llacine for
safe keeping. and in this instance it means that
there shall be a safe keeping of certain election
papers until they are delivered to the canvassng
board. No duty can be more definitely defined.
IL is terse, it ia true but nevertheless il is clear
what the election officers must do. II cleo
ton officer omits to do 1t. then he comes under
omit tho duty amenable to Section SSH.
Ii the election officers did not safely keep
the papers. then the crime,was complete whether
the canvassing board sent for the sealed bags or
not The very acts charged in this Indictment
are clearly provided against by law. Nothing |
is left by implication. for il the intention of
the Legislature and Congress to guard against |
unfair elections and they have done it distinctly
in giving both sets of papers equal Importance
II the outside papers are, therefore, impor tant
Tor the canvassing board to review rhe re-
turns, then much moro important 10 the law
that requires them to be safely kept bv the |
inspectors until they are delivered to the board
In referring to the evidence, he said that il
showed that no other persons but the defend
snts had the opportunity to commit the crime
As to the statements by one OF the attorneys for
The defense that the government had abandoned
PERKINS testimony |
o the very essence of the crime. and was cor
tolerated by long line OF witnesses. whose tes-
imony alone sufficient to convict. Hence,
he defendants were confronted by witnesses
Who. though testfyine to separate facts, gave a
ubls force to the evidence.
AS to a judges power to instruct the jury
both on questions of law and fact tho Indiana
tatutes limit the instructions to law, but in
United States Supreme Court decisions it has