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

minds of the jury of the fact Counsel have
discussed the question of the corrobcration OF
Mr.. Perkins and mis- conflict with other wit.
nesses. Those matters in ths common
knowledge of the jurors; you know how to
weigh those things. and ! shall mot go int
them, except will say this to you: The conflict
between Perkins and other witnessed
is largely between him and 40
cused parties; there .u. are r some ~b par
he is in conflict in some respects. In determin
ing what credit You should give Perkins yos
should consider what motive he bad for telling
this story against this that individual ac
cused here. who may be ontside and not
accused here. When q defendant comes on the
stand to testify yon know that he has motive
for denying any accusation against him; you DC
not have to hunt for motive for him. There
Is that difference in favor OF Perkins. that be-
fore you explain why ne should tell false
hood against any of these You have "a
hunt for a motive; you do not need to hunt fof
any motive to explain why they should deny his
story, because they have motive that they ars
accused of crime and have necessity for excul-
pating themselves by their own testimony and
such other they obtain AS TO the de-
PENDANT Coy Suppose you leave Per
put Perkins on trial with Coy.
and have him standing here before you and both
denying their guilt; how would the proof standf
Mattler delivers his papers TO Perkins; Coy has
in his control q room in the courthouse, No. SO,
and carries the key to it; nobody gets In with
out his consent; that is established without Per-
kIns's testimony. Burton's testimony fixes Coy
and Perkins in that room within thirty minutes.
Matter, who now is to be considered a wit
ness and not as a defendant. considering Coys
case alone-Mattler testfes that he received
the papers from Perkins, in the hall, and carried
them to and gave them to Hisey. Now, you
have Matters testimony, Hisey's testi.
mony and Bur.on's testimony. bringing
Coy and Perkins together in that
rsa won H1d !. t the changed
for you gentlemen. But there is other evidence
against Mr.. Coy-his conduct with reference to
here il is proper that you should consider in this
connection the fact that Mr.. Coy was chairmap
Of his committee. Mr. McNutt, in his opening
argument. stated that Mr. Coy had a right to be-
before the board Of canvassers. 1t was his duty
to be there and keep his eyes open to prevent
any wrong being done. am not disposed to
as that 1t cannot be said, think. that he waa
under q legal duty TO see that wrong wal
done there, but think It is quite evident-at
least. leave ir for you to consider whether il
was not in his power to stop any wrong OF that
kind that was going on there. Suppose Coy had
spoken mp and said: "Gentlemen. this thing
must not be done" Would it have been done1
Now. he is not under legal obligation to do that,
but he occupied position that gave him the
power to do it. But how far that element en-
tiers into your determination of MIR. Coys rela-
tions to this matter leave it to you to decide.
He had the power to stop it; that is, / submit to
you whether he had. The story of Mr.. Weir.
Mr.. Counselman provided for in order to keeI
him quiet, saying something to the effect that
would be dangerous to do otherwise. This tes-
timony / believe has not been denied 1t is Of
very significant force, but of how much force I
leave it you. You have this testimony
bearing upon the question of whether Coy was
cooperating with Perkins, without considering
Perkins's story at all. Perkins adds his story.
And now that presents the practically az
against Mr.. Coy, and leave it in your hands.
What is the with regard to Mr.. Spaan
and Bernhamerl II is their conduct before the
board Perkins has nothing TO do with it, ex-
cept the statement he m axes of Span coming
49, H..
were to be used il the bags were sent for. Mr..
Span is not to be convicted in this to
be held guilty In your minds because that Is all
the sense in which it is submitted to you now;
ne is not trial Because he appeared there
as an attorney aud argued for positions of law. il
he did it honestly, he is not to be convicted any
more than Mr.. Elan or any other man who
comes before a board representing client Tho
only question is whether he did it honestly
have explained to you what the law means
They started out, it seems, upon Mr..
Spans suggestions or cooperation. at
least, by saying :, they would go by
to prepare the way for getting those forged
taly-sheets through the board and get the bene-,
fit of the forgeries, of course that was very
ing in the First ward against Mr.. Sullivan; they
proceeded upon that theory until the count was
finished; but at time they went back
and changed their mode of action in regard to
the first counting and went by the certificates
instead of the tally sheets. 1t is argued here
on behalf of the prosecution that the circum-
stances all showed bad faith on the part of Mr..
Span. l will not go into his case any more
minutelv now because he is not on trial, and
it il immaterial in certain sense. AZ
his in detail. Mr.. Bernhamer,
however. is on trial. and the question is whether
he is guilty or not guilty of aiding in this con-
spiracy, being originally party to 1T, or coming
into it afterwards, and aiding it when he foun it
on foot. How far the choice of Mr.. Bernhamer as
chairman, bears upon this question. leave to
you without comment, except adding in the line
of suggestion that such scheme could hardly
be gotten through the canvassing board without
the aid of the chairman. l submit to you
whether it is not evident that the chairman OF,
such q meeting could have stopped this thing
upon it's first presentation, il he had an honest
desire and purpose to do it. 1t is said in his be-
half that no bound up by rule that the
board adopted that they would rot go for thel
tay-sheets except in cases when there were no
outside papers before them. / have already
explained TO you my views of the law, and read
You the law, and you can see how plain it is that
the tally sheets might be sent for and the board
act upon it. Now the inquiry naturally sug-
gests itself here. what is the relation of all this
body of eighty eight men to all this transactonf
1t may occur to your minds that the doctrines
that laid down here make every one of these
men guilty. and they ought to be indicted l do
not consider it so at all. You all heard what
was said about similar crimes having been COM
cations In years before; and have little doubts
that the majority. the great majority of those
present on that board did not believe these
charges. but that they believed they
were false and gotten up at the time
for false purposes, aud fraudulent pur-
poses. At any rate. l call that view OF
the question to your minds. It is not TO be pre-
sumed that eighty eight men brought together
in the way these were would fall into such
conspiracy, or would acquiesce knowingly and
consciously in its being perpetrated. They did
not believe that there was anything of the kind.
Mr.. Spaan says for himself that when he stood
there advocating that rule. that they should GO
by the tally sheets. that he had not the
forgeries and he did not know they were there,
and that when he went up and saw them that
he stopped. Whether he did that honestly or
not, il he were trial. would be a matter THAI
would have to be considered. But il has this
bearing upon the duty these other men had with
reference to the transaction. 1t 10 not proper
is no inference 10 be drawn
against the great body OF these men, because
this thing was perpetrated.
Now then what was the bearing of Mr.. Bern
hamer in reference this matterl The first
he calls attention to. aside from the speech he