St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-05-06
CONDEMNS 0'MALLEY
Comprehensive Report Of the
Special New Orleans
Grand Jury.
The Jury in the Hennessey
Case Charged With Cor
ruptiOn.
O'Malley, MeCrystol, Cooney,
Glaudi, Granger and Ar
maui Indicted.
The Citizens Who Lynched
the Italians Were JUS
titled.

New ORLEANS, La, May 5.-After
six weeks Investigation the grand jury
completed its labors on the Hennessy
case and the killing of Italians at the
parish prison by presenting the follow
ing special report at 4:30 O'Clock this
afternoon. When this grand jury en-
tered upon its term of service there was
pending in section B, this tribunal.
the trial of nine men, indicted for
participation in the assassination of
the late superintendent of police.
ID. c. HeunesSy, on the night of Oct. 5,
1890. The enormlty of that crime, eX-
ecuted at the midnight hour, created
unusual interest throughout the whole
country, while in our own city, vitally
concerned in the administration of JUS
tlce, as deeply affecting her social, polit-
ical and material welfare, the sentiment
of the populace had crystallized into the
concrete form of expression, that JUS
tice be rendered through the recog-
niZed channels of criminal jurispru-
dence, that the guilty perpetrators, who
ever they were, be tried by an impartial
jury of American citizens, and meet
stood out in awful prominence above
and beyond dispute or question by any
man-the fact that crime of unpar-
alleled atrOcity had been commit
ted. evidenced by the five ter
rible death-dealing weapons, the
numerous slugs and bullets fired
Oh their errand of human destruction.
and found imbedded in the fences and
houses at the scene, besides the missiles
that struck down the solitary man who
would never have been marked as the
victim had he not filed the responsible
position of chief officer of the law. 1t
is not TO be wondered that attention
should be directed to the trial during the
many days of its progress in the seIec-
tion of jurors, the evidence of witnesses,
the arguments of counsel, the charge of
the judge and finally concentrated on
The Twelve Men
who by virtue of their solemn oath, sat
in awful Judgment on their fellow men.
The verdict is now of official record,
bearing date March Is, 1891. We cannot
be mistaken in the assertion
that the verdict was startling,
amazing, bitter disappointment,
shocking to public opinion, provoking
the repeated accusation that some of
the jury had been unfaithful to their
office. We feel that we do not tran
scend the limits of our duty as the
grand inquest, TO refer to the strong
presentation of the case as made by the
state through counsel associated in the
prosecution. Clear, continuous, COM
plete. convincing in the direct teSti-
mOny and the material circumstances
1t appeared more than sufficient to con-
vince the most unwilling listener with
Its truth and convey the full measure of
its power to those who ventured a
doubt. AS the trial neared it's
termination it was not pos
sible for any observer to fail to realize
the comments made on every side.
touching the action of some members of
the jury, when the case should be sub
mitted; charges and speculation
abOunded, coupled with the well-known
connection of certain parties of un-
enviable authority, as shown by their
presence daily in the court room and
building, arouSing the suspicion that
the most subtle, dangerous and power
ful influence known to the practice
of criminal law, were being exercised
in behalf of the defense. These con-
siderationS have led us to investigate
the subject, EN- bracng all its attendant
conditions and incidents. The inquiry
has been conducted with the utmost
diligence, devoid of fear or partiality,
with the single purpose of fastening
the guilt to the proper persons and pre-
senting them under Indictment to this
tribunal. Each one of the twelve jurors
of the trial was summoned and asked
to make a statement. None objected,
but all rather welcomed the opportunity.
1t was notable feature of the sworn
statements that the primarily
Sought to Justify
their verdict, by attacking the line of
evidence presented by the state and at
taching much weight to the arguments
of counsel for defense. 1t was freely
admitted by the jurors that remarks had
been made in the jury room as early as
the first day. when testimony was of
fered and repeated a number of times
afterwards that the state was making
poor case," and was positively
repeated at the close of the
evidence for the state. One quarrel
at least was reported, arising from the
accusation by one juror to another, with
the expression, 'You talk like you
were fixed before you came here" They
formed no conception of the tension to
which the public mind was strung,
though impressed with the deep interest
as shown each day by the crowd of spec
tatorS in the court room. 1t was
clearly indicated that the necessity
for secrecy was urged, as
the several jurors We're selected
and Joined the company of their fellows.
1t was impressed upon them at yarions
times and finally, before the verdict was
rendered, brought forward again, with
the injunction to destroy every vestige
of evidence they had. and leave every
thought and act behind them. Surely
the urgency of this was most cunningly
devised to conceal the peculiar events
that transpired in the jury room. Careful
observers testify with special reference
to the marked inattention of the jury as
the witnesses submitted their evidence
"a conduct most unbecoming and
fraught with the gravest consequences.
when the momentous import of the
issue is considered. We are led to con-
clude that the jury undertook to try the
case when 1t was submitted, by their
own estimate of the value of statements
made by parties not called as wit
neSSeS. With strange unanimity they
oWelt upon what they knew by
Reading and Hearsay
of certain incidents of the assassination
prior to the trial, and made those the
basis OF the powerful persuasion for
giving the accused the benefit of the
doubt and concluding the deliberations
In their favor. We must take occasion
TO say that it was not expected to obtain
any evidence of undue influence from
the members of the jury, for those who
were uncorrupted had nothing to reveal.
while the others would not maka them.
selves particeps criminis, yet in their
numerous statements much was OBJ