The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-03-23
BunrAu or THE srNrIxrI.
II@U NhW ! UNhs ANE., n. w,
WASHINGTON. y. O, March 81.

NAsnlNGTOG, -. G., March II.
The report Of the proceedings OF the senate
In executive session. aud Of the evidence taken
before the judiciary committee in tho Woods
onse has been printed but an examination Of
the volume reveals the fact that some very
startling omissions have been made. The printed
report contains. so far ns is known, al
the evidence of the witnesses examined by tho
committee and the proceedings OF the executive
sessions when the nomination was considered;
but il does not contain two communication
from Judge Woods 10 Senator HoGr, chairman
OF the judiciary committee. which were by him
submitted to the committee of the senate.
These two communications were OF tine most
important character In one Judge Woods
sought TO defend his course in the Dudley case by
trying to reconcile his first charge to tho grand
jury, under which Dudley could have been in
dicted, with his second charge under which no
indictment against Dudley eould be found. In
this letter he also attempted to defend the rul-
ings by which no quashed the indictments
against hundred or 30 republican boodlers,
while the legal points sustained in quashing
the indictments were the same as in the cases
of Coy and Bernhamer in which the indiot-
ments had been sustained.
The second letter omitted is one sent TO
] Senator Hoar in reply to the sworn charges
| that he prepared the indictment in the tally
sheet case and attacked his course IN that case.
/ This affidavit, soon as filed, was forwarded
/ to Judge Woods FOR his perusal. 1t set forth
] that Judge Woods prepared the tally
sheet indictments on which Coy and
| Bernhamer were convicted with his
| own hand; that the L. s. grand jury
met in the regular way. found an Indictment in
| this case and Rdjourned that after its adjourn
| ment Judge Woods discovered that the indict-
ment was defective in that it gave an incorrect
| description of one precinct; that notwitstand-
| ing he knew it to be so defective he overruled
the motion to quash entered by the attorneys
| for the defense although before overruling
the motion he had ordered the u. s. marshal
| TO recall the jury by telegraph.
When the Jury reassembled Judge Woods,
| with his own hand. prepared the indictment
and gave il to District Attorney Sellers. That
official submitted il TO the grand jury and that
| body returned il as its indictment. After this,
on motion of the prosecution, Judge Woods
noiied the first indictment although previously
| he had upheld it when the defense had moved
| 20 quash.
Then Judge Woods heard arguments on a
motion to quash the second indictment. which
| he had himself drawn, and sustained that
| instrument.
When this charge was fled Judge Woods
was notified. The proof of the charge was
| complete, and In his letter to Senator Hosr he
made no attempt 10 deny il. On the contrary
act. He claimed that the circumstances were
exceptional and such to justify HIM in the
course he had pursued.
1t is very singular that these communications
should have been omitted from the printed re-
port. They contained admissions sufficient to
convince every lawyer and jurist in the land of
| Judge Woods unftness for the place to which
| he was nominated. Whether these were
| omitted by Senator Hoar Of his own
motion or on the reuest Of
| Judge Woods is not known, but the omission
| has surprised even republican senators, who
cannot understand this direct disobedience of
the senate's order. which was that all evidence
should be published.
Whether Senators Voorhees, and Turpie will
| take action on the matter is not yet known.