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


power of the board in that respeetl There is
not a word in this statute about sending for the
bags when the outside papers are not present
The only express authority for sending for bags
Is this read to you: 'unless opened by said in
spector in che presence of the board OF can
vassers as herein provided Mr.. Landers
awaited himself of that authority and asked that
his bag be sent for. Mr.. Myers. of the Tenth
ward, availed himself of that authority and
asked that his bag be sent for. Is there any
good reason why when Mr.. Schmitt said that
paper that you have before you there and that
certificate have both been forged; they
are nor true papers; the board has not
manufactured. forged and altered papers here
before it, worse than il they were absent entire
~. is it possible that sensible men believed that
they could send for the bags in one case and
could not send for them in the otherl These
the instructions on this subject that submit TO
you. Their application will be further indicated
ter that eesurred there before the canvassing
board. This pamphlet was il the hands of Mr.
Spaan, and he read what purported to be
SYNOPSIS of decision of the Supreme Court of
the State: THE acts Of csnvassers being min
isterial they liable to the person injured for
unlawfuiy failing to perform duty or for per
forming it IN an unlawful manner The fact OF
its being ministerial has not anything to DO with
sending for the bags. 1t has something to do
with hearing evidence from witnesses or any
thing of that kind with regard to the face OF
the papers. 1t has not anything to do
with the looking at the papers themselves
Every ministerial officer, in passing upon
papers must first determine the genuineness OF
the paper before he passes on it. The face OF
the tally papers and certificate made by the
inspectors, judges and clerks being the guide
not one of those papers, but all OF them-,'be.
ing the guide, it is improper for the board OF
canvassers hear testimony touching irreRu-
iarities at the election" That had not a thing
to do with the question of sending
for the bags; not thing to do with
the question Of comparing the certificates
and tally-papers That only means that the
board could not hear evidence about things that
H. g lie t. ofr
restrictions at all; 1T does not indicate at all the
rule of action in respect to the canvassing of
the returns. ! say i, does not indicate; it does
indicate. 1t says the face of the taliy-papers
and certificates, emphasizing the idea 1 have
already given TO you that it was the dutyof the
board to look to all the papers before it and not
to a part.
This much with regard to the law of the case.
On these subjects. as have already said to you,
the instructions of the court are binding. You
have right to disregard the rulings Of the
court in this respect. The parties have a rem
edy il l have committed any error by appeal to
the Circuit Court.
shall now proceed gentlemen, to say some
things about the evidence 10 this case but re-
mind You of what said before that what say
now is not binding upon your consciences
except so far as it commends itself to your
judgment. You are ultimately the final judges
of all questions of fact, the credibiiity of wit
nesses and the differences TO be drawn from the
testimony, and anything that the court says is
only for the purpose of aiding you in consider
ing the testimony leaving the ultimate respon-
sibilitv with you.
/ shall not refer TO the details Of the evidence
only to some of the principal features of it.
In the first place, there a conspiracy
Perkins alone, it is conceded, was guilty. Was
anybody else acting in concert with hims Coun-
sci for defense have argued that PerknS-but
have not fully adhered to the position-that
Perkins did all the work himself, and that il he
did not do it all himself, he had somebody
der his control other than these defendants,
that did the work under his direction: in other
words practically. that he is responsible for ali
this work, and the other defendants are not at
all implicated in the CRIME In approaching
that question. the first palpable thing, it seems
to me, that you would consider would be the
work done. There are seven sets Of papers that
ing the canvassing; three of them resulted in
very considerable excitement and
fusion fns hbsf0rA the board Of ca1vasssss;
Ter and Edwards. Contained only slight
changes, and as l recoilect the testimony
of some witnesses who spoke about it, while the
made the subject OF any discussion before the
board. But that five of these papers were
changed and canvassed as changed there is not
any dispuse-the Hisey papers, the Oehler
papers. the Edwards papers, the Schmidt pa
pers and the Counselmau papers. There is some
dispute with regard to the Mattler papers and
the Baker papers; it being insisted on the part
of the defendants that they were changed after
the canvass. I shall say nothing about the
Baker papers because they cut but little figure
here. Baker is not on trial. OF course the set
is embraced in the Indictment with Others but
L regard it as cutting comparatively small figure;
but OF course you give it such significance
as you think it entitled to. Now, the
changes themselves such one man could make
or did make. Perkins said that he changed two
sets, the Mattler set and the Hisey Set but he
did not change the certificates because he did
not want to exhibit his handwriting and thereby
expose himself TO detection and punishment. He
says he did not change any of the others. Some
and that gave the defendants an
opportunity, of course, to show that they were
in Perkins's handwriting If they could. But of
course if Perkins got some mere empoye to make
such changes it would not be in his handwriting
and they could not make any proof of that kind.
But suppose Perkins alone was responsible for
these changes; do you think they would ever
have gotten through the canvassing board2
Take Perkins in the character that he is
found to be; he is not dominating man;
he works works.. at the bidding of other.
fully trusted-he is used not to be trusted.
Could he have gotten those things through the
board doing it for some. purpose of his own
without any help of people who had prominent
control of what should be done by the board2
Could 1t do any good to change those papers I'M
less some plan were invented for getting them
through the board2 They would not work them
selves through if those who controlled the action
Of that board did not fit to let them go
through. Would they have gotten through;
would there be any possible chance of their get
ting through2 / submit that for your considera-
ton in determining whether Perkins alone,
the mere face of the papers themselves. and N
are whether he alone was responsible. In
addition to that you know that Mr.. Schmidts
papers went out of his possession; they did not
20 to Perkins directly; at least they went into
the hands of somebody else. Whether it was
Sullivan or Budd is of course question of fact
for you to determine the evidence. But
whether it Sullivan and Budd or somebody
else it was not Perkins. There is testimony
that tends to trace those papers into the hands
Of Perkins: the same is true of the Counselman
papers; the same is true of the Oehler papers
the Oehler papers were left 10 the court room
and sometime afterwards an hour and half
two hours. were delivered by Mr. Coy to Mr..
ths Edwards papers. / am not
sure about the particular set, but one set was
traced in ito the hands of Mr.. Coy. 1t is said by
counsel that he offered explanation of how he
got possession of them; L do not pretend to
recollect his testimony that subject that
g a question for you. Ii he has not
offered any exclamation of how those papers
came into his possession SO as to throw the
blame on to somebody else. them OF course. there
arises a suspicion, To say the least. against him.
and il he had excuse he ought to have Of