The state capital., 1891-05-09
NO INDICTMENTS.
The Orleans Parish Grand Jury
on the Late Tragedy.
The Action of the Citizens Justified in
View of the Evident Guilt of the
Victims and the Expedients
Used to Thwart Justice.

NEW ORLEANS, May 6.-The long-de-
layed report Of the grand jury in the
international affair of the parish pris-
oners, March IA, was presented late last
evening to Judge Marr. 1t iustifies the
citizens and presents no indictments.
The following are the important points
embodied in the report:
GRAND JURY ROOM, May 5, 1891
TO Hon Robert III. Mdrr, Judge Of the Criminal
District Court Of the Parish Of Orleans,
Section A.:
When this grand Jury entered upon it's
term of service there was pending in Sec
ton A, Of this tribunal, the trial of nine men
indicted for participation in the assassina-
tion Of the late superintendent of police, ID.
o. Hennessy, on the night of October Is, 1899.
The enormity of that crime, executed at the
midnight hour, created unusual interest
throughout the whole country, while in our
own city, vtalIy concerned in the adminis-
tration Of justice, as deeply affecting her So
cial, political and material welfare, the SEN
timent of the populace had crystalized into
the concrete form Of expression, that justice
be rendered through the recognized chan
ne!s Of criminal jurisprudence; thatthe per-
petrators, whoever they were. be tried by an
impartial jury Of American citizens and meet
with a righteous conviction. One fact
stood out in awful prominence above
and beyond dispute or question by
any plan-the fact that a crime of unparal-
leled atrocity had been committed evil
denced by the five terrible death dealing
weapons, the numerous slugs and bullets
found mbedded in the fences and house 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 of po-
lice of the law. 1t is not to be wondered at
that attention should be directed to the trial
during the many days of its progress: in the
selection 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 officially recorded bear
ing date March 49, 1891. We can not be mis-
taken 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 high office.
We feel that we do not transcend the linn
it's of our duty as the grand inquest to refer
to the strong presentation Of the case as
made by the state through counsel asso-
cated in the prosecution clear, continuous,
complete, convincing, in the direct testi-
mony and the material circumstances. 1t
appeared more than sufficient to convince
the most unwilling listener with its truth
and convey the full measure of its power to
those who ventured q doubt. As the trial
neared its termination, it was not possible
for an observer to fail to realize the com
ments made on every side touching the ac-
tion of some members Of the jury when the
case should be submitted. Charges and
speculations abounded, coupled with the
Well known connection of certain parties of
unenvable notoriety, shown by their pres
ence daily in the court room, and arousing
ha SnSnininD
and powerful influences known to the
practice Of criminal law were Deing exer-
cised in behalf of the defense. These con-
siderations have bed us to investigate the
subject embracing all its attendant condi-
tions and incidents.
The inquiry has been conducted with the
utmost diligence devoid Of fear or partial
ity, with the single purpose Of fastening
the guilt upon the proper persons and pre-
senting them under Indictment to this tribu-
nal. Each one of the twelve jurors of the
trial was summoned and asked to make
statement. None objected, but all rather well
coined the opportunity. 1t was notable
feature Of these sworn statements that they
primarily sought to justify their verdict by
attacking the line of evidence presented by
the state and attaching much weight to the
arguments of counsel for the defense. 1t was
freely admitted by the jurors that the
marks had been made in the jury room as
was offered and repeated number of times
afterwards, 'that the state making a
poor case" And this was positively re-
peated at the close Of the states
evidence. One quarrel at least was
reported arising from the accusation by one
juror of another with the expression: ''YOu
talk like you were fixed before you came
here" They formed conception of the
tension to which the public mind was
strung, though impressed with the deep in
terest shown each day by the crowds of
people in the court room. 1t was clearly in
dcated that the necessity for secresy was
urged as the several jurors were selected
and joined the company of their fellows. It
was impressed upon them at various times
and finally, before the verdict was rendered,
brought forward again with the injunction
to destroy every yestige Of evidence they
had, and leave every thought and act be-
hind. Surely the urgency of this was
most cunningly devised to conceal the
peculiar events that transpired in the jury
room. Careful observers testify with spe-
cial reference to the marked inattention of
the jury as the witnesses submitted their evil
dence-as conduct most unbecomiEg and
fraught with the gravest consequences when
the momentOus import of the issue is con-
sidered. We are led to conclude that the
Jury undertook to try the case when it was
submitted, by their own estimate of the
value Of statements made by parties not
called as with esses; with strange unanimity
they dwelt upon what they knew by reading
and hearsaY of certain incidents of the as
sassnation prior to the trial. and made those
the basis of the powerful persuasion for Civ
ing 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 un-
due influence from members of the jury, for
those who were uncorrupted had nothing to
xul,s 10 fIn Afb A,,Id IAi1t aIyn
themselves particeps crmins; yet in their
numerous statements much was obtained,
having O direct connection with and sup
ported by the great volume Of testimony
elected during the course of the inquiry. 1t
Is clearly brought ont by the evidence of the
jurors that, as affecting three of the accused,
Politz, Scaffedi and Monasterio, the jury en-
gagged in the deliberation on their cases
some four or five hours. attended with in
tense excitement and repeated bal
-1cts. the jury's vote stood: Six guilty
six not guilty. This is a clearly defined in
dication of the convictions of the jury, as to
the three accused and mpresses deeply.
as it must every one to whom the fact is con-
evidence was sufficient to justify the six
jurors who stood resolute and determined
for verdict of guilty, making it well nigh
impossible TO reach any other conclusion
than a mis- trial. The three accused named
above were probably the unwilling actors
designated by the leaders of the conspiracy
~ TO execute d yillainous part, in which they
had neither personal motive or interest