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

=
wben the court sat in the afternoon, the
crowd was again great to listen to Judge Woods's
charge There were present more OF the politi-
cal associates of the defendants than at any
time during the many days Of the trial, while
here and there could be seen representative
attorney or business man. Beyond tine benches,
the spectstors taking them as they came, stood
In n solid mass Matter and Bernhamer, the
defendants were early in their seats. but Coy
was late coming in, and then would often leave
the room during the delivery of the charge. OF
the accused not on trial, Albert T. Beck and
John L. Sullivan alone were present the
greater part OF the afternoon. Span
did not appear at all, nor did DE- Metcalf. Budd
came only for few minutes to deliver mes
sage to Sullivan, and then retired The defend
ants attorneys close listeners, not an utter
ance OF the Judge escaping their attention. The
jury did likewise, there being only two or three
who seemed listless unconcerned. Everybody
was impressed with the searching analysis the
Judge gave every legal point and phase of the
case and the clearness with which he presented
the salient facts, stripped of all subordinate or
secondary Incidents For two hours and half
the reviewed to an audience Of lawyers.
defendants and citizens, who showed signs
of WEAKNESS or lessening of interest. The court
said:
Gentlemen Of the Jury-It Is proper in the
beginning that should state to you the relation
of judge aud jury to each other in this court. as
At Is somewhat different from what you may
have been used TO in the State courts. In the
State courts jurors are judges both Of the law
and Of the fact the exclusive judges OF all ques-
tions Of fact, and ultimately have q right to
Judge OF the law in the case. They also fix the
punishment If they find verdict of guilty. In
this court the subject Of punishment IS left to a
ijndRe. if a verdict of guilt be returned, within
the limits, of course prescribed by the statute
You bound by the instructions of the
judge in respect to purely law questions; and in
respect to questions Of fact the judge has more
discretion than is accustomed to be exercised or
indeed is permitted to be exercised by the State
Judges in the way OF advising jury. though
whatever / may say in respect to any question
of fact is only advisory ana should influence you
only so far as 1t may commend itself to your
Judgment
shall proceed, gentlemen on the assumption
that you remember the oath you took, and that
in accordance with that oath your purpose yet
IL TO try the case and to return a verdict
according to the law and the evidence; that so
far as any outside matters have been referred
permit yourself to be influenced by passion or
prejudice either for against these defend
ants; that you will not return a verdict against
anybody because he occupies this that posi-
ton. neither will you return a verdict for him
because he occupies this or that position. If 1
were not satisfied that your minds were in this
condition it would of course be useless thing
for TO charge you at all in respect to the
case But have doubt you recognize the
responsibilities of your position and inclined
to discharge your duty according to. your con-
&c fences under the law.
Some matters have been referred to in the
case that may have some remote bear ing upon
the consideration of the credbility of witnesses
and parties, and the motives under which they
have acted, either in giving their testimony or,
If they be parties accused in the case, the mo-
tives which have governed their action in re-
spect to the matters under consideration. So
far as these matters may have any such bearing
il is entirely proper that you should consider
them and weigh them. But If you go beyond
that you will. of course, be going beyond the
proper limits of duty. The question TO be tried
is the question of the guilt or innocence of these
defendants each OF them, of a particular charge,
the charge embodied in an Indictment returned
by the grand jury, and to which Indictment we
must address ourselves in determining the ex-
act inquiry which have to investigate. The
charge against these defendants is, emitting for
malitIes, that the third day of November, 1856,
they with others named in the Indictment con-
spired among themselves and with one Samuel
II. Perkins to obtain unlawful possession OF the
tally papers held by certain inspectors of the
election in this city and county. Those inspect
ors are individually named in this Indictment as
Allen Hisey, LorenZ Schmidt. John III. Counsel
man. Stephen Matter. Joel III. Baker, Joseph
Becker Andrew Oehler and John Edwards. . It
is charged that, intending to obtain unlawful
possession of these papers and to mutilate them.
the accused conspired among themselves, and
with Perkins, as stated, to induce these inspect
ors TO omit their duty in respect to the papers;
that is. to omit their duty to retain possession
of and guard the papers until delivered to the
clerk of the county or to the canvassing board.
This Indictment is founded certain sections
of the laws OF the United States and of the
State. Tho United States 'being interested in
the election of Congressman, has power. ex-
pressly declared by the Constitution, and
in the exercise Of that power has
fit to enact provisions with regard TO
the congressional elections And instead of
making special provisions Congress has adopted
the laws OF the State. and has enacted penalties
for their violation as if they were laws enacted
bv Congress itself. In this pamphlet have be-
fore me have a succinct statement of the pro-
visions. both of the laws of Congress and of the
State the subject The several sections of
the laws Of Congress are long, and it would be
tedious to read them to you, and there
many provisions in them that are inapphcable.
have before me copied literally the portions of
the statutes which are applicable to the be-
fore us-the portions on which this indictment
is based. BY Section 5515 of the Revised Stat
utes of the United States every officer of an
election at which any Representative in Con-
cress is voted for. whether appointed under au-
thority of the United States of any State,
''Who neglects refuses to perform any duty
in regard too such election required of
him by any law of the United States. or of any
State or who violates any duty so inn
posed" is declared punishable; and, by section
55l1, IF any person interferes in any
manner with any officer of such election in the
discharge of his duties, or by force threat, in
tmidRtion, bribery, reward, offer thereof.
other unlawful means. induces any
officer OF election, officer whose duty it is to
ascertain, announce declare the result of
any such election. give make any certif- |
cate, document or evidence in relation thereto
to violate or refuse to comply with his duty, or
any Law regulating the same" or by |
section 55l2. III any such officer or other per-
son, who has a duty to perform in relation
TO such election, Knowingly neg |
lects or refuses to perform any duty
required by law, violatess any |
duty imposed by law relating to or |
affecting such election, or the result thereof or |
(affecting any certifcate, document evidence |
In relation thereto. or if any person aids, coun-
sells, procures advises any such voter, person |
or officer TO do any act which is hereby made |
crime. to omit any act the omission of which |
is hereby made crime-every such person is |
hereby made punishable" By section $500 it is |
provided: eff two more persons conspire to
commit any offense against the United States,
and more Of such parties do any |
act to affect the object of such conspiracy, all |
shall DO liable TO a penalty" That penalty, while
ii is not matter that you directly concerned |
in, II il not improper that YOU should know, |