The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-01-30
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.

Hoosier Democrats Vent Their Spite ON Judge
Woods, but All to No Purpose.
Specialize the Indianapolis Journal
WASHINGTON. Jan. 29-At half past 10
o'clock this morning the Senate committee
on judiciary began its investigation Of the
charges preferred against United States
Judge William A. Woods, of Indiana. The
entire committee, composed of Messrs.
Hoar of Massachusetts,. chairman Wilson
of Iowa, Teller of Colorado. Platt of Con.
necticut Mitchell of Oregon. Republicans.
and Pugh of Alabama, Coke of Texas. Vest
of Missouri. George of Mississippi, Demo-
crate were present
Will G. Nichols, of Indianapolis was
probably the first witness who testified.
The proceedings were conducted behind
locked doors under the seal of strict
secrecy, SO that the details of the testi-
mony cannot be given. but the Journal
correspondent has managed to secure fair
outline Of it. Mr.. Nichols was questioned
as to the court records. He had memo
cases, and the indictments in the Sim Coy
case especially. HIS testimony was of q
routine nature and unimportsnt
Mr.. James FL. Rice was next examined.
He was o short horse soon curried. His
testimony did not occupy three minutes.
He knew nothing pertinent to the legal
aspect of the investigation, but was
asked as to The politics of the
various witnesses summoned before the
committee. He stated that they were
nearly all Democrats. thus showing that it
of those summoned to testify outside the
custodIans of the records of the court were
Democrats who had feeling against Judge
Woods because he suffered Sim Coy to go
70 the penitentiary and did not insist upon
an indictment being returned against Col
w. w. Dudley in the "blocks-of-fve" case
Noble G. Butler produced q transcript Of
the court records in both the Coy and Dud-
ley cases He showed beyond the least
doubt in the most intensely partisan mind
that the procedure In both cases was regu-
lar; that the indictments against Coy were
drawn in the regular way; the charge to
the jury moderate; that there was nothing
extra judicial in the Dudley case, and in
detail he explained the charges to the
grand jury. and told what he knew about
the conveninR of the grand jury and It's dis
charge. He explained the vacation, the
intermissions. etc., between the first and
second sitting of the grand jury.
TOM-TIT BAILEY's SAY.
Leon o. Bailey, ex-United States district
attorney. testified as to the drawing of the
indictments in the Coy cases. and alleged
laxity in the Dudley investigation. charg-
ing excessive partisanship and zeal on the
part of Judge Woods in the first case
against, and in the latter in favor of de-
fendAnt He thought Woods had exerted
improper influence in various ways in op-
position to the securing of an indictment
against Dudley.
Mr.. Ochiltrec. of Rushville. knew moth.
ing of consequence. He charged partisan
ship when he refused him the right to de-
fend two counter felt witnesses.
Judge Solomon Claypool. of Indianapolis.
W no was important in the Coy case, oc-
half the other six witnesses who testified
to-day. He consumed two hours in what
he said. His testimony went over the en-
tire ground In great detail In the Coy and
he and Judge Woods were not
friends; that in point of fact they
were personal enemies; they once had q
controversy which led to very angry words.
He would not deceive the committee by
leading any one TO believe that he
had no feeling in the prose-
cution of this investigation. He
disliked Woods exceedingly. The personal
feeling of Judge Claypool disrobed his tes-
timony of any favorable impression It
might have made upon the committee. 1t
was clear to all that he was not only in
tensely partisan. but he WAS a prejudIced
witness from personal feelings. He placed
his own constructions upon the action of
the Judge In every step taken in the Coy
prosecution. believing, In q word, that Coy
had been railroaded to the penitentiary be-
cause he was q Democrat. while Dudley
w 40 saved from indictment because ne was
q Republican. He thought Woods had
gone far beyond his authority in the draw
ing of the second Indictment against Coy,
holding that it was not within the purview
of the bench to make any suggestion as to
the form in which on indictmont should be
drawn.
In this position Judge Claypool met with
opposition from mem bers of tie committee,
among whom are some of the most distln-
guished lawyers In the country. They held
that 1t Is part of the duty of Judge In
instructing Jury to return an indictment
to indicate in what language il should be
phrased. and especially to indicate the
points TO be covered in order To have it
stand. and. having determined TO return an
indictment, 1t WAS necessary In order to