The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-06-12
JUGGLING WITH JUSTICE.
Woods Rulings in the Coy Case Contrasted
With Woods Recent Rulings.

10 IdE EDiTOR-sStF. sim 10Y seeluS 10
be regarded by some, Notwithstanding the
pardon of the president, as an ex-convict;
by others, especially bis personal friends,
as martyr. To me it is totally immaterial
whether he be classed as an ex-convict or
o martyr, but it is especially fitting now to
recur to the state of affairs under which
he was convicted. In doing so do not
underrate the valuable services OF THE
SENTINEL in showing the inconsistency OF
Judge Woods. / simply follow In the line
it has marked out. and will call attention
to one thing that has escaped public men,
ton.
Coy was convicted on an indictment
charging a conspiracy formed for the pur-
pose of inducing certain election officers
TO fail to perform q duty imposed on them
by law i. e., to keep in their actual man.
ual possession certain election, or tally
sheets. containing the vote OF congress
men. There was no claim that the vote
OF the congressman was tempered with.
This Indictment was based on a statute OF
the United States. which makes il crime
for an election officer to fail to perform
any duty impose' ~ state statute, or
for any one to in ICE any election officer
TO fail 10 perform any duty imposed by
any state law.
The Indiana statute provides for two
tally-sheets. Sec. AIS R. 5. 1881 pro
vides that one of the tally-sheets to-
gether with the ballots, with one OF the
lists of voters and other papers, shall be
placed in a stout paper envelope and
after being sealed in the presence OF the
two judges by them be delivered TO the
inspector, who shall in turn deliver to the
county clerk, and on delivering to the
clerk this envelope the inspector shall
make and subscribe an oath that said en-
velope has not been opened by any person
and that no person has broken such seal
or opened said envelope to his knowledge.
Sec. ALP provides that the other tally
sheet shall be deposited with the in
spector. This tally-sheet the inspector
shall present to the board of can
vassers. (Sec. 4,7l5.) Nothing is said
as to what he shall do with it
during the time intervening between re-
ceiving it from the judges and delivering
to the board OF canvassers, which shall not
be later than Thursday after the election.
The sheet referred TO in this section Coy
and others were indicted for conspiracy to
get possession OF. AS the state statute
does not in express terms make II crime
to induce the inspector to part with what
in the state court would lie for inducing
an inspector to simply part with the sheet,
no alteration therein being made-because
under our state system only those acts are
crimes which are expressly made so by
statute.
The question came up in the Coy habeas
corpus proceedings before Justice Har-
Ian. How was the prisoner TO be held
when the statute did not say in eX-
press terms that the tally-sheet should
be kept in the actual manual posses
sion of the Inspector" The an
swer OF the learned Justice was
that IL was the intent OF the legislature
that the outside tally-sheet tsec 4,7l3)
should be kept in the actual manual pos
session of the inspector until presented to
the canvassing board, Thursday morning
after the election. For this language see
in re Coy; 81, fed. rep, PIP. 1880.
'Still the inquiry remains as to the in
tent with which the legislative department
enacted these laws. In giving effect to
the rule that penal statutes must be strict
ly construed, the court must not disregard
the kindred rule that the intention of the
law-maxer, to be gathered from the words
employed, governs in the construction of
all statutes" IL was said by the supreme
court of the United States, speaking by
Chief Justice Marshall 90. s, Wittberger
3. Wheat 1881 that although penal laws
are to be construed strictly, they are not
10 be construed so strictly as TO defeat the
obvious intent OF the legislature" citing
other cases Therefore, he holds: 1T is
inconceivable that any inspector could
suppose il to be consistent with his
duty to part with these papers in
advance of his meeting his colleagues of
the board OF canvassers. They are de-
posted with him as an officer of the law.
acting under the sanction of an oath.
The word deposited implies that the de-
positorv must safely keep these papers in
his own custody until he surrenders them
to the board whose duty it is to canvass
the returns and certify to the result of the
election.
1t is the legislative intent that controls
This opinion simply sustained the posi-
ton of Judge Woods in his charge to the
grand jury that returned the Indictment
against Gov and the others. There Judge
Woods created a constructive ofense and
resorted to legislative intent to sustain the
Indictment.
But how is it row. when it comes to in
dieting republicans who have committed
bribery and perjury by the wholesale?
Judge Woods holds that advising bribery
is not a crime, and attempting bribery is
not crime, although the statute expressly
makes them such and he says this, too,
in constituting astatute ofthe United States.
at is ambiguous and clumsily expressed"
says the Judge. But there is no doubt
about the intent of congress. In the state
statute construed by Justice Harlan he
says the intent shall prevail, although the
statute does not require actual manual
custody-and this, too, in the face OF the
rule in this state that nothing is a crime
except what is expressly made so by
statute. In the federal court the rule is
that the legislative intent shall prevail
This rule Judge Woods disreoards. Had
he followed it. Dudley would to-day at
least be under indictment, and the recent
wholesale Jail delivery would not have Oc-
Cured. The motive that inspired the
action oil Judge Woods THE SENTINEL has
sufficiently ventilated. | desire simply to
call attention to the views of Judge Har-
Ian and show that they are inconsistent
with the alleged epistalory views which
Judge Woods claims to have received from
him. a REPUBLICAN, LAWYER
Logansport, June 8.