The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-26
THE LAST OF THE EVIDENCE
Fragmentary Facts Brought In to Com
plete the Election Conspiracy Case.
District Attorney Sellers Opens the Argument
for the Government-He Is Followed by
John w. Buskirk for the Defense.

morning both the defense ana prosecution intro
duced fragmentary testimony to fill in the cor
ners but none Of it was of much consequences.
except in showing minor contradictions IN the
evidence of some witnesses who appeared at the
former trial Dan Burron's previous statement
that he did not say in Room 80, This is no place
for me- was disputed by his testimony before
the federal grand jury last May. Harvey r.
Matthews, foreman Of the county grand jury
that did not return Indictment underwent
an embarrassing cross-examination, suggest
i've of pitfalls for the defendants had they
intended to pursue a line of testimony
to prove that Perkins did not testify be-
fore the jury all ne knew concerning the con-
spiracy. The government proposed to offset the
smirching of Perkinss character by the defense
by the testimony of reputable citizens. but un-
der the application of the rule that his general
character had not been assailed the many wit
nesses for this purpose did not have an oppor-
tunity TO go on the stand. A number of wit
nesses had also been summoned to counterfeit
the evidence as to Coy's good character, but this
was also withheld
The mornings testimony began with that of
John H. Counselman for the defense, who ac-
counted for his actions on the day before the
canvass by saying that he made an effort to have
his papers completed the day after the election
by having the judges sign the poll-b certif-
cate He went to Abel Davis the Republican
judge, who accompanied him to the
other judge, A B. Young. The latter said
It was not necessary TO sign the certificate. The
night of the canvass he was asleep three hours
in the board room. He knew nothing of his
tay-sheet being changed. While he slept it
was in his overcost pocket. II there were
changes in it then they were made after the
count by the precinct election board and before
the sheet came into his possession He had no
intimaton of plan to alter election papers and
did not know who changed any of them. He
made no suggestion to Bernhamer in the can
wasting board that he had been told it was not
: necessary to have the pol-book certificate filed
out.
James H. Rice ex-Auditor OF State aud chair
man Of the Democratic State central committee,
gave Coy and Matter good regulations Daniel
Lemon said that on the day of the canvass he
did not suggest In the presence of Tom O'Neal,
Samuel Perkins and Inspector McGlynn, nor at
any other time, that McGlynns paper should be
changed Thomas O'Neal, employee of j. E.
Sullivan, testified to the same effect.
The government began its rebuttng testi
mony with that of Leon o. Bailey, assistant
district attorney, who said that he assisted his
principal, MI Dell6Tb, IN GHe Rrduu jury lnVeStI-
CATION which resulted in the returning of the
first Indictment The latter did the question
ing. He remembered Mr. Burton being before
the jury. Burton told the jurors that he was in
a room with Mr. Coy on the day of the canvass
and that he left it because IL place for
him. Witness made a note Of 1t. as he took
memoranda of all the evidence before the jury.
David w. Coffin, foreman of the United
States iur in Nav asst and fha
ferred to in Bailey's evidence, said Burton testi
fed, as far as witness could recollect, that some
one came to him in the courtroom while the
canvass of votes was being made with the mes
sage that Smith Myers wanted to see him in
Room SO. Burton said he went there and found
Coy, Perkins and Myers III the room, but left it
soon. saying it was no place for him Judge
McNutts cross examination was directed to
questions referring to the witnesses connection
with the committee.o one hundred. He was
not a member of that organization at its incep-
ton, and he did not think he was member
while foreman Of the grand jury.
Noble G. Butler Clerk of the United States
Courts identified the tally-sheet of the first pre-
cinct of the First ward, in which Rollins had 1874
votes and Sullivan 12l. The certificate gave the
latter five votes more which were transferred
TO the sheet OF, the canvassed returns, showing
that the canvass was made from the figures of
the Certificate and not from those of the tally
sheet defendants witnesses had said
ID. M: Bradbury testified to a long acquaint-
Samuel. The said the latteris reputation
good for integrity, morality and veracity. He
spoke Of him prior to the tallysheet transaction,
but Perkins IL, and always has been, q truthful
man. On being cross-exsmined witness said he
had never heard of questionable transactions be-
ing attributed TO Perkins while his father was
Supreme Judge.
Judge Jacob B. Julian had known Samuel e.
Perkins for many years. When witness was
asked if he knew his reputation for integrity.
truth and veracity, the defense objected on the
ground that Perkins's general character had not
been attacked aud that the evidence was not ad
missible. Judge Woods sustained the objection.
o. Il. johnson was called to testify as re con-
versation he had with Mr. Span after the Judge
charged the jury in the former trial. The de-
Tense objected to 1t as being out of time, but the
court holding 1T wac competent. MIR. johnson
Eaid the conversation occurred at the baseball
ground. Span told witness of the charge hav-
ing been made and criticising it in some particu-
lars, especially to the judge instructing the jury
that Mr.. Reardon was not guilty, remarked,
"Reardon knows more about the changed tally
sheets than any of the other defendants"
Mr.. Spaan went TO the stand for the defense
and said he told Mr. johnson there was a great
deal more evidence against Reardon than against
him, who knew nothing at all about the matter
and never had a changed tally-sheet in his
hands. He told Mr.. johnson it was strange the
judge should instruct the jury to acquit Rear
don when Perkins testified that he was the man
who brough the ink to Coy.
Harvey r.. Matthews, foreman of the States
grand jury, testified that Perkins was before
that jury. After he was through with his evil
dence witness asked him if he had told all. He
replied that was all he knew. On cross
examination he said he Intercepted Perkins
part of the time. He had written questions
which he prepared himself. No one wrote them
for him. His knowledge of the which
the questions were based was what he learned
from newspapers and outsiders. He did not go
TO any one to get notes. Witness could not
name the persons with whom he talked. and
made no especial effort to obtain Information
concerning the forgeries He did not start out
10 give the matter a full investigation. He was
arx( a. ~,
cases were to come before his jury. By the
he had been informed of the
tally-sheet frauds. All the changed
papers were before the jury. He sa W traces of
acid and mutilation. and convinced that
forgeries had been committed, but the jury
gave them as much attention as it could consid-
ering the other business it had on hand. He
pulled out of his pocket list of questions, and
when they were asked the matter ended. The
latter statement he qualified by saying 1T did
not quite end the matter" This ended the tes.i- |