The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-02-13
WEDNESDAY, FEB. Is.
woods and the "Red-Eyed Law"

TIE Nelrs, which has pronounced WILL
IAN WADE DUDLEY ian honest and much
maligned man." is now engaged in the
congenial task of defending DUDLEY s
judicial protector, WILLIAM \. WOODS.
In order to make plausible showing for
WooDs the Meas finds it necessary to
ignore the fact that he reversed his in
structions to the grand jury, when by such
action alone DUDLEY's indictment could
be prevented, and to make the false asser-
ton that his construction OF the
law is sustained with one voice
by good lawyers" The Ne1Cs has
repeatedly testified to the legal
ability and the personal integrity of ex-
Senator MCDONALD and Judge CLAYPooL.
Both of them say very emphaticaiiy that
WOODS did not construe the law correctly
in his revised instructions to the grand
jury, and the former goes so far as
TO characterize these instructions as
'preposterous." If Judge WOODS de-
clared only the "red-eyed law" when he
closed the doors against DUDLEY's indict-
ment, Mr.. MCDONALD, Judge CLAYPooL,
Senator VOORHEES, and many other law
vers of far higher rank than he has ever
held, or ever will hold, clearly do not
know the 'red-eyed law" when they
see il.
But if it is the "red-eyed law" that
WooDs declared in his second charge, what
was it he declared in mis- first charge? In
the latter he told the grand jury emphat-
ically and without any qualification what
soever, that advising bribery was crime.
He never intimated that it was necessary
that such advice should be acted upon in
order to make it a crime. He gave the
jury plainly to understand that its duty
was to indict any one whom it believed to
have been guilty of advising bribery.
whether it had reason to believe that such
advice was acted upon or not. He said
that there ''lDas some qCisd0m IN the pro-
risior" making the mere advising OF
bribery felony, and he concluded his
charge with the statement that his inter
probation of the law COVERED every charge
that had been made or was likely to be
made, as to offenses against it. The second
instruction was in direct conflict with the
first instruction.
Now if the ''red-eyed law was so plain
why did not Judge WOODS lay it down in
his first charge instead of waiting until
DUDLEY's Indictment was imminent T?
Why was the "red-eved law" withheld
from the grand jury through weeks of a
laborious investigation, conducted under
The instructions first given? Why was the
''red-eyed law" not proclaimed until
QUAY and BATEMAN had visited Indian
,polis and conferred with Gen. HARRISON ?
Why was not WALTER @. GRESHAM,
WOODS immediate judicial superior, not
consulted in the premises? Why did
WOODS not wait until both sides could be
heard upon a motion to quash the
indictment, before passing upon this
question, instead of making an ex parte
decision, and thrusting it between his po-
litical and personal friend and a prosecu-
ton for bribery?
These questions the Ners will not an
swer; it will not attempt to answer them,
and for the simple reason that they can
not be answered without impeaching
WILLIAM A. WOODS judicial integrity, and
presenting him in the character OF de-
fender of crime and an ally of criminals