Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1892-09-08

papers for libel in publishing the latter
as his production. Republican organs
throughout the country ridicnled the
idea that SO cunning q politician
would put himself in such a position as
they admitted would follow the writing
and sending of the letter, which they pro
nounced q forgery under the influence
of Dudley's suit. When the facts were
brought before the grand jury in In
diana Judge Woods charged its mem
.bers under the impression that Dudley
would sustain his suits in New York
and prove the alleged forgery. He told
the jury:
"And now, in reference TO the particular part
Of the offenses named, I wish TO say that con-
siderable question has been made since the
election which we have just passed as &c
whether attempt to, bride constitutes Of
Tense under this law. instruct you that ii
does not under this Statute The latter clause
Of the section makes anyone guilty who coun-
sells bribery"
After this charge had been delivered
Mr.. Dudley's counsel were confronted
with the original letter written by him
and sent to his partisans in Indiana;
the signature was identified as that of
Dudley; the typewriting was identified
by experts as that of his private score
tary; the paper was identified as that
used by Dudley in his private CORE
spondence, and Dudley's practical adj
mission that he wrote the letter was
proven by those who heard it. Under
the original instruction given by Judge
Woods an Indictment of Dudley was
inevitable.
In this emergency Judge Woods be-
came a friend in need to the accused.
The judge called the jury and gave
them another charge, which was in the
nature OF an explanation, but really
withdrawal of his first. Let the two be
compared by honest voters:
SIT results, OF course, that the mere sending
by one to another OF a letter or document con-
tanning advice to brfbe voter, or setting forth
scheme for such bribery, however bold aud
repreheEsible, Is not indictable There must
be shown IL addition attempt by the receiver
OF the letter or of some other instlgated by him
to execute the scheme by bribing or attempting
to bride some voter in respect to the election of
congressman, or in such way as to effect suoA
election
The judge who had charged that
''the latter clause of the section makes
anyone guilty who counsels bribery"
now tells the jury that proof must be
given that, besides the counsel to
bride, there has also been subse-
quent attempt to carry the advice into
effect. In other words, Judge Woods,
having charged that counseling bribery
was indictable, declares that he was
| wrong when he made this statement,
supposing that Dudley could prove his
innocence, and that the only offense
| that is indictable is under the statute
| quoted. Judge Woods knew that it
| would be impossible to secure testi-
| mony to esta blish the guilty act of the
| witnesses. He had seen that Dudley
dared not face his accusers, and that
| the pretended zeal displayed in vindi-
eating himself against the charges Of
New York papers had vanished; and he
came to the rescue of the man whose
acts complained of had resulted in the
election of Benjamin Harrison. Every
intelligent layman, though IMMERSED in
the law. can see the nature of the two
charges given to the grand jury in.
vestigating Dudley's crime. The ami
mus is as plain to them as to the emf
nent republican lawyers who have ex
pressed their adherence of Judge
| Woods act and of his elevation to the
judicial honors by Benjamin Harrison
the beneficiary of Dudley's fraud.