The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-21

board and saw there MIR. Coy and Mr. Perkins.
To the defendants attorney he said that while
in the room he made no such statement that
attributed to him by Perkins. To redirect
question he replied that Joe Shepherd told him
Smith Myers wanted to see him, and was told
that Myers could be found in the room to which
he went He did not see him, and was not in
the room half minute Perkins sat at the
table IN writing position. When the district
attorney asked him if he did not tell him before
the grand jury in May last that he left Room
% because be saw it was no place for him, the
defense objected, but in repeated questioning on
this point the witness avoided a direct
answer by saying he did not recollect having
said anything more than that he had no business
in the room.
Following this came the testimony of Charles
Dennis. DIR. Theodore A. Wagner and w. A.
WIlk1Ds, relative To Coy and Spaan being In
Room 80 at o'clock Friday morning, a short
time before the returns of the second precinct
OF the Fourth ward were canvassed. 1t also re-
terrad to the conversation Coy and Span mad
with Dennis and wilkins after the two first
named came out of the room.
Evidence then introduced concerning the
altered tally sheets of the sixth precinct or Cen
ter township, offered by Joel A. Baker, the IN
spector, and George O'Day, one of the election
clerks. Mr.. Baker said the papers were In mis-
possession from the time the count In the pre-
clnct closed until hs delivered them when they
We're called for to Bsrnhamer. Friday morning.
When the sheet was opened by Captain Many ne
changes on il, but he could observe some
now. Clerk ODay did not remember on whose
vote he corrected some errors while the sheet
He made some. The prosecution had the sealed
bags containing the sheets of the various pre-
cincts at issue brought into court to compare
them with the forged papers, but the defense
agreed to the fact that the outside sheets rad
been changed
Captain Eli F. Ritter testified as to the
eral legal Investigations leading up to the indict-
ment of Coy and others. He conducted the ex
animation before the county grand jury as dep
uty prosecutor in that case only. The first time
he saw the mutilated tally-sheets when
they were all before the United States grand
jury. in December, 1886 He examined them in
the Office of the United States clerk, in the pres
ence of that gentleman, Henry n. Span, and
attorneys for Albert r. Ayres and Judge
Irwin. Mr.. Butler the clerk named. had pos
tally -sheets remain now. as they were then, with
all the mutilations distinctly obs ervable He
did not the Matter papers until the term of
the federal grand jury of May, 1887, the one
that returned the first Indictment in these cases.
The witness. short time before, had learned of
the mutilation of these papers, and procured
evidence concerning them 1t was also at that
time he discovered the changes in the sheet of
the sixth precinct. Center township. In regard
to the agreement he had with Samuel E.
Perkins, the latter's attorneys Oscar b. Hord
and Col. A. w. Hendricks. prepared a statement
as to what testimony Perkins would give
In the GRO IS examination the defense attempt
ed to impeach the credibility of Captain Rit-
ter's testimony by showing that he was the
attorney of the committee of one hundred,
organ ization, the defense assumed intended
to carry partisan purposes and ends. But
before Judge McNutt entered into that feature
he questioned the Captain closely to the
Perkins agreement in endeavoring to develop
the idea that Perkins agreed to testify before the
county grand jury to Coy. and none of the other
defendants, if he would be released from prose-
cutiou by the State The witness said ne
thought If he had Psrkins's testimony as to
Coy he could get enough evidence otherwise to
indict others. At the time the agree
ment made witness thought
Perkins's personal knowledge extended Only to
the transact ions between him and Gov.
The cross examiner then took up the commit
tee of one hundred, into the membership of
which he inquired Captain Ritter told him
that one-half of the members were Democrats,
and he could furnish the attorney list. Judge
McNutt wanted him to name few Democrats
aside from VIM. Henderson, but finally let that
question go by with tie request that the Cap
tain would give him list of the names when he
could procure them Turning from tho Demo-
cratic members Judge McNutt asked the wit
ness if there were not Republicans the
mittee who in 1880 shared in what the attorney
termed the Dorsey corruption fund. Captain
Ritter replied that he knew nothing at all about
that matter, nor was he present In 1880 at any
place when corruption money, it is charged,
was distributed by Republicans anyone else.
He never at any time saw took part in the
distribution of any money for political pur-
poses
Were you candidate or an applicant for
any Office in 1892" the defendants attorney
mo sir. I never candidate appli-
cant WAS talked of for a certain office by
others"
lis not this William Henderson the same man
to whom William III. Barnum, chairman of the
national Democratic committee in 1876, tee-
graphed, Buy more mulesY"
Judge Woods, determinedly-"Stop. This is
a palpable effort to divert the minds of the ju-
rors from the main point, and to turn this trial
into q political discussion You have gone be-
yond all verge of with your questions.
want the fullest Investigation, and as far
this method of examination will apply to testing
the credibility of witness, l will allow it some
lattude but when You undertake TO reflect
the character of others not present it caunot be
done"
Judge McNutt sought to justify his position,
but Judge Woods declined to take any other
view than that which he expressed in his
ruling
Major Mitchell. the county prosecutor,
then called by the government to corroborate
Captain Ritter as TO the Perkins agreement,
which he did The evidence for the day closed
with that of Noble C. Butler bearing on the
partly filled poll book certificate of tina second
precinct of the Fourteenth ward, which Perkins
said the inspector. McGlynn, accompanied by
Tim O'Neil and Dan Lemon, brought to his Of
fee the day the canvass of votes by the board
was being made The defense objected to the
Identification of the certificate or its submission
to the jury. but the objection was overruled.
This morning the defense will begin its testi
mony. as only two or three witnesses for the
government are yet to be examiped.