The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-20

do that service For instance he went on.
Bernhamer's bond when ha arrested for :
whipping his ward, and also on bonds at the re-,
quest of Sullivan and Taggart for men they got
ont of trouble in order secure their votes
When the tally-sheets were being changed in
Room 50. Stephen Mattler, Coy. Dan Burton,
Smith Meyers and man named Flynn. brought
In by John Reardon, came in at different times.
Burton LEFT suddenly saying my God this is
habeas corpus proceedings relative to his refusal
to testify before Commissioner Van Buren,, he
was told that money had been raised to help
pay the expense OF the litigation. He was in
jail eleven days and the suit cost him $1,000.
After being released he went to Matter and
asked about this promised money, and when
well. Steve. if you can't, you can't" He never
threatened to do him up. Both sides reserved
the right to recall Mr. Perkins. and the Court
thereupon adjourned it's morning sitting.
Mr. Perkins, at the opening of the afternoon
proceedings, recalled on re-cross-examination,
stated that before the county grand jury he
testified to nothing except what related to him
and Coy alone. He did not understand the fore
man of the Jury to ask him if he knew anything
more. Captain Ritter asked him if he had any
thing more to tell, and he said he had not
in regard to the acid Coy asked for. witness
spoke to Dr. Metcalf about it He told witness
he could procure it, and the two went to DIR.
Metcalfs Office, where a test of certain acid
the Doctor had obtained was made. II proved
effective. Metcalf called in Captain Berg. his
clerk, to witness the test. After that the three
came to the corner of Illinois and Washington
calf going south Illinois street, and witness
continuing east on Washington. This occurred
between and o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr.. Beck brought witness a tally sheet during
the canvass, and asked him to change or have 1T
changed. He met him at the door leading into
the canvassing room, but witness told him that
he was able to do it as he. Witness said to
him, Here is Coy's knife He is still in the
room" Mr.. Beck took il and left. This might
have occurred at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, but
it was after the other sheets had been changed.
He did not employ counsel to go before Ayres,
sitting criminal judge, to have the forfeiture
of the Van Shack bond declared, but Mr.. Bailey
then a partner of Major Gordon, offered to do it
Onre-direct examination. he said chat the Van
SLACK bond was never forfeited, but the Gov
ernor remitted half of witnesses responsibility.
1t was originally 81 900, but had been reduced
to 50. 900. Coy was on the bond, and his share
was not RENTED. 1t is still in force. Witness
had paid $500 with money borrowed from the
Bank of Commerce. He had repaid the bank
over half of the loan, and there was never any
agreement that parties interested in the prose-
cution of this trial would reimburse him.
Morgan H. Weir. of LaPorte and member
OF the State Senate in February, 1887 testified
that at that time q remonstrance of citizens was
presented to that body regarding the appoint
ment assistant door keeper of John Fl. Coun-
Selman. one of the men charged with consplring
to procure tally-sheets from their legal custodi-
ans. and with giving up to defendants
the tally sheet which be held as inspector
of the second precinct of the Fourth ward. An
attempt was made, Mr. Weir said, to have Coun-
seman discharged from his position as an officer
of the Senate, and one day after the remon-
STRANGE had been presented Coy came to the wit
ness and said, "Counseman must have place.
He must be kept where he can be controlled.
There is danger in not doing this"
In the cross examination Judge McNutt sp-
piled himself streuuously in reducing the
value of this testimony as he did in questioning
Perkins. From the beginning it appeared that
he desired to show Mr.. Weir had occupied not
only an inconsistent position in regard to the
retention of Counselman as one of the SEN
ate door-keepers, but had become recreant to
what the defense deemed party trust.
He had the Senator state that in 1858 he
Republican. and elected to the lower house OF
the Indiana General Assembly, and that he
voted for Jesse D. Bright. Democrat. for
turned to the General Assembly of 1885 as
Senator. He was then elected by Democrats.
Did you advocate claims" asked Judge Nc
Mutt, in the Senate of 1885, for feesf
mo, sir; no, SIR" holly replied MIR. Wier
land You have no reason to suppose did"
From this the defendants attorney sought to
develop the idea that Mr.. Weir, in July follow
ing the last session OF the Legislature, voluu-
teered information to the government, concern
ing the Counselman incident after ne had in the
Senate opposed the remonstrance mentioned.
He was asked if he did not on the Saturday
of the first week of the trial last July write q
letter to District Attorney Sellers, stating that
he could testify az to this matter. Mr.. Weir re-
piled that he did write to Mr.. Sellers, but he
supposed the government had completed Its
case and that he would not be called upon to tes-
tify, which he did not offer xpect to do.
Have you that letter. asked Judge McNutt.
81 have a COPY" said Mr.. Weir, which will
show to you il You will promise to return it."
McNutt, when ask for document in open
court"
'sThen you cannot have it unless the court
orders me to produce it. was the angry answer.
Judge Woods order to that effect or.
rather, said the attorney might have the letter
if he desired itA Judge McNutt then got pos
session of 1t, and, after reading it through care
fully, asked if the witness could explain the
remark: Il believe it not improper for me to
aid old acquaintance. Press the damn
scoundrels to the wall"
IF Judge McNutt will read odd for 'old' he
will be more correct" Mr. Sellers suggested.
'When that letter was written" Mr.. Weir
said, II had no idea that any one except the
gentleman to whom il was addressed would see
it. It was private letter, sent to an old friend
for years"
How is it," asked Judge McNutt, ''you use
damn in many other instances in the letter."
''You can draw your own conclusions" snap
pishly retorted the witness.
Are you lawyers"
Eyes, sir"
"Dont you know then when q question is in
complete2"
II find it hard to tell when you have com
pleted your ques tons"
The examination then drifted to the action in
the Senate on the citizens remonstrance. He
could not say who raised the question there as
to the competency of the resolution discharging
Counselman attached to the document The
whole matter was referred to committee. but
upon whose motion he could not say. Other
Senators opposed the retention of Counselman
Another spicy interchange of words occurred
when Judge McNutt asked the question If he
did not come to the trial last July to testify
without beingssummoned except by the District
Attorney.
The witness replied that he received two tele-
grams, one telling him to come. to which he paid
no attention. and the other urging him to come
a subpoena would be sent for him. He never
spoke to the marshal or any of his deputies about
q voucher for mileage. He expected to get
mileage and per diem, although he was not
suffering for it, After he was discharged
witness he returned home, where a certificate
for his mileage and per diem. in the usual form,
was sent to him.
Judge Claypool the assistant district attor-
new said he would like to hear the letter read
to the jury.
eff it passes into the hands of the prosecu-