The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-05-01
A LITTLE TOO MUCH OF COY
The So-Called Trial characterized BY Bragga-
docio from the Accused. and Sacrilege
from his Supporters-They Save Him.

from bis oupp0rters-Iney pave uim.
That Coyism notwithstanding its several de-
fests, has no, been crushed in Indianapolis was
demonstrated at last nights meeting OF the
Council, called for the purpose OF passing upon
the charges preferred against the local Demo
cratic boss, and asking that be be expelled a.
menber Of the body. Before o'clock the
friends OF the convicted party manager began
to fll up the lobby of the Council chamber. and
In half an hour standing room could not be pro-
cured At just 7:30 o'clock Coy entered
the room in charge of Deputy sheriff Robert EN-
NETT There was ripple of applause from the
sdherents of the gang as be took seat near the
door and engaged in conversation with Council
man Hickiin. Presently he passed about the
room, and was awarded hearty welcome by
the Democrats councilmeu. After he had
shaken hands with all bis friends he took a seat
At the reporters table and waited for the Coureil
TO be called TO order.
The Democratic members held o consultation
before the session was opened, and it was nearly
8 o'clock before Mayor Denny raped for order.
All the members were present After the roll
had been called the Mayor stated that it was o
session out of the usual order as the council
msn had net to consider the proposition to un-
seat one OF their number. The Mayor then read
the sections of the statutes and ordinance pro-
viding for the expulsion Of . member in which
IL shown that it required . two-thirds vote
to carry out such action. After the Mayor had
finished his reading and comments. he turned
to Mr.. Coy and asked:
'Do you desire an Attorney
mo, sir: do not desire an attorney replied
Mr.. Coy.
The original charge presented by Councilman
Darnell was then read, and following It Council
man Marley offered to present what he termed
q minority report, which had been prepared by
Coys attorneys or some ono to whom the &C.
cused furnished the points Of his defense.
Councilman Dsrnell thought minority report
eonld not be submitted at that time az the COM
mittee had reported two weeks previous, and its
report had been acted upon.
Mayor Denny said that strictly speaking he
did not think the report could be submitted but
helwss willing to allow the Council to decide
whether or not the report should be heard.
Councilman Markey asked as q special privilege
that the report be read.
Councilm an Pearson thought that there was
no reason Why the report should not be allowed
TO come In, although 10 was certainly irregular.
Couneilman Marley moved that the report be
read aud the vote by yeas and nays on the
py . vote Of IL to 10. Counciimsn Wilson.
Trusler, Thalman. Pearson and Swain vot ed
with the Democrats The report was then read.
In reality II was Cows defense TO the charges
preferred by Councilman Darncll II was quito
lsneShy, and dealt largely with the
history Of the conspiracy cases. II
cited. In turn, that t the November term
OF the United States grand jury. In 1886. pro-
sentiment was made against Cey aud others,
but 10 indictmsnt was returned; that In Dsc@m.
Der. 1886. DR. Theodore A. Wagner flsd infor-
nation against Coy ami others. aud that an ap.
peal was taken 20 Judge Gresham. who held
that the federal court held no Jurisdiction; that
~ the February term OF the Marion county
grand Jury, In 1887. Eli Ritter. Of the committee
OF Que hundred. made prssentment before tho
county grand jury. but no indictments we're 70.
tnraed; that a. tho May term Of the United
went before that body and the jury found In
dictments against Coy aud othcrs.
The hfth aud next paragraph OF the report
charges that David w. Coffin and ii. ii. Lee
were members OF the grand jury that returned
tho ipdictm-pG that they were members of the
committee OF one hundred, which Was organ.
ixsd for the prosecution Of the persona who COM
mitted the election frauds; thai Conn was the
foreman OF the jury. and during t,s investira,
sion was Ia constant communication with Ritter.
the attorney for thu committee, and that both
Lee and Coin contributed 70 fund raised 10
assst In the prosecution.
The repors than cited that the case came TO
trial In July. and resulted In 3 dlsAgrssmsnt Of
she Jury; that In October, 1887. The same United
states grand jury, with CONN ne foreman, aud
LeoAs member, was again called together,
AID again considered the tally ahe~t oasss and
indicted Coy aud others on new statute foundi
that Coy and others were placed on trial, aud
convicted Of consprins.
The next aph rscitss that Samuel T.
Perkins, who Was the prosecuting witness, tssti-
Ned before the Marion eoanty grand jury that
no was alone coenizant OF the frauds upon
the election returns, and that after the county
grand jury had refused TO return indictment
against Coy Perkins &C the May term OF tho
United States grand jury tsatihed that Coy aud
ten others were connected with the frauds.
The report further states that the testimony
OF Perkins tended mainly TO the mutilation of
tally sheets and not To the conspiracy as charged
In the indictment, and that IL was not In any
way coroborrAted.
II Is next set forth that the jury which con-
victed Coy and BernhAmsr was tampsrsd with.
The Jury Was permitted by the court to separate.
thus a1ordine certain persous who were inter
ssted Ia the conviction Of Coy "a opportunity 10
use undue influence upon the minds Of the jur.
ors The specific charge 10 then made that one
Schsll acknowledged having taken ono Of the
Jurors to . house OF il-rspuie and kept him there
during the night, and In the morning insisted on
the juror voting for the conviction Of Coy.
Tho charge that certain members Of the
jury drank LIQUOR while celebrating was also
Tseited. aud that tho foreman Of the jury used
undue influence to procure = verdict OF guilty.
was set forth. In summing no, tho report stated
that the only evidence against Coy Is bis sdmis.
sion that he requested Democratic inspectors
not TO make their returns TO the county clerks
Office, but to hold the sheets in their possession
until 10 A. NJ. Thursday and then report them 10
the board. The opinion of the minority report,
IS summed 40 at tho close. was 40 follows
We. your committee verify believe. that from the
evidence produced before the various grand juries
and courts by whom said Simeon Coy has been tried
and the bitter partisan feeling which has been
brought into his with the help Of the personal
snsmies 70 said Coy and with the evil
dence or Perkins and finding The presence OF act
i've members OF the committee a one hundred upon
the grand jury whi... indicted him. one Of whom was
the foreman of the same and who was foundso have
been ~ constant communication with the attorneys
for the committee Of hundred; and the out.
rageous conduct OF certain Jurors connected with the
trial and from the fact that Cows case hal been In.
vestgsed by numerous grand jurcs United States and
United States commissioners and tried before United
States court In which the jury disagreed.
And further that while still under indictment In
the United States Court he was unanimously renom
mated by his party and elected by double the ma
1orty he received as member of this Council
And believing that crime was intended against the
laws OF the United States Of the State OF Indians