The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-03-02
A Proper Construction.

n PROPER OOnbtruCtiOns
He expressly told the grand jury that it was
a violation of this section of the federal statute
TO counsel or advise bribery ct an election. He
stated that 1t was a crime under the section Ito
in any manner counsel, aid or assist in the
bribery of a voter" He declared il to be
crime for one to advise another TO
attempt to commit the crime OF election
bribery. He correctly drew the distinction
made in the section between an attempt on the
part OF the person himself to bride voter, and
the counseiing by one person of another to
make the attempt and in doing so. he told the
grand jury that this section did not make an
attempt to bride voter crime II 1t could be
shown that the attempt did not succeed, but
that the section did make it crime for one to
counsel, aid or advise another to make the at
tempt. In this construction OF the section
Judge Woods was clearly right. 1t is a sub
stantive oifense under this section of the fed
eral statute for one to advise or counsel an
other to commit the bribery mentioned in IL,
and it is complete when the advice or counsel
is given, if the person so advised neither CON-
mits the bribery nor attempts to do so. To
make it perfectly plain to the grand jury Judge
Woods said:
If A attempt TO bride B that is no offence under
this statue but if \ advises to attempt to bride
c, then the one who commands or gives this advice
is offender under this law, and will say there is
some wisdom in the provision.
Judge Woods concluded his charge with
these words:
If you have heard as 1 have, charges publicly
brought In our prints and elseN here against any
citizen OF his having offended under these statutory
laws We considered regulating our elections, it is
your duty take cognizauce OF the charges brought
against him, investigate the evidence OF guilt that
stands against him, aud feaTlessy render your IN
dictmeht wi bout regard to the DoliticSl party to
which he may belong. the official position he
may hold or may have held when he committed the
Ofense
The people of Indiana were not at a loss to
know, in part at least. 10 whom the concluding
words of this charge referred. 1t says: with
out regard to the political party TO which he
may belong, or the official position ne may
hold. or may have held"
The author of the blocks.of-five letter wes
known. and it was known TO what political
party he belonged. and that he had held many
official positions the last being commissioner
of the pension Office.
The grand jury proceeded to make its inves-
legations and discharge its duty according to
this charge which was binding on it. At this
time those who had conducted the disgracefal
scheme set forth in the blocks-of-fve letter
discovered that il was not only an expensive
one but that il was hazardous. The danger
signal was plainly visible, and the principal
actor. and those who had been closely con-
nected with him at once saw that extraordi-
nary measures had 10 be resorted to, or the i'm
pending danger would soon overwhelm them.
The plans. means and measures employed can
be easily and well OWNED by an inquiry into
what followed.
On the 9th day of the following December
Judge Woods adjourned his court for One
week to hold court elsewhere. On the 18th
day of December he reconvened his court and
continued ii in session until the 23d day of that
month, when he adjournedit until the 18th day
of January, 1889. On the next day, the 18th
day of January. 1882 Judge Woods Inundated
himself before ell honest and fair-minded citi-
Zens of Indiana, ana brought shame and morti-
hcation upon the Just administration of justice.
H. LII l. g.
given to the grand jury on the 14th day OF No
vember preceding. His first charge, correct as
it was he had carefully and deliberately given
to the grand jury. Why was it recalled? Was
il for the purpose of saving some guilty person
from indictment, trial and conviction, which
would have necessarily followed had it been
adhered to?
The Reputation.
In this connection the language used in his
last charge 10 worthy Of important considera.
ton. IL is as follows:
That the sending of one to another of a letter
o. document containing advice to bride a voter or
setting forth scheme for such bribery, however
bold and reprehe sible is not ndctable that there
must be shown in addition an attempt by the re-
ceiver of the letter. or of some other instigated BY
him, to execute the scheme by bribing or attempt
ing bride voter in respect TO the election Of
congressman, or in such way rs TO siect such cleo
tion.
This is the language used in what is known
10, 1889, by which he placed a very different
construction on sec. B. 51l of the federal statute
from the one he had placed on it by his former
charge.
In addition, Judge Woods, in his supple
mental charge, prescribed q rule of evidence
which if adhered 10 made il i'm possible. and
was so intended, TO convict the author of or
those connected with him, in preparing or
sending out the miserable and criminal plan Of
debauching ballot boxes aud corrupting voters.
as set forth in the disgrseeful blocks-Of-fve
letter.
For whose benefit the supplemental charge
was given is plainly inferrable from the words
il uses. 1t says that the mere sending by one
TO another OF a letter." The point in question
in the case of the blooks-of-fve letter was that
its author was guilty because he had sent it to
another and Judge Woods so held in his first
charge. But in the second charge he Fepudi-
ated his own words and said il must be shown
in addition to the sending of the letter there
was an attempt by the receiver or by some one
instigsted by him to actually execute the
scheme of bribery set forth in the letter by
bribing or attempting to bribe some voter in
respect to the election of congressman.
The last charge saved all persons who were
guilty of making or uttering that infamous
letter from even Indictment much less pun
ishment. Ii accomplished its intended pur-
pose.
But the expense OF the original scheme and
all of its consequences had not been fully salts
fed. The strain of conscience which this
supplemental charge produced on its author
could not be ignored. Ii must have due com.
pensation. He has waited long and patiently
for his reward. No doubt this waiting has
been trying and irksome to him, but he has at
last received his TecOmpense. The president
of the United States, whose election occurred
at the time this criminal scheme did its wretchcd
work, has invited him TO step higher up into
the temple of judicial glory. even il his presence
there diminishes its splendor and casts the
mantle Of shame on its honor.
/ ooncede that the scheme adopted by the
Pennsylvania justices of the peace is less ex-
pensive and insignificant compared with this
one. But when il is compared with ordinary
dishonest election practices it takes high rank.
Surely it ought not TO be permitted to enjoy
the fruits OF its victory.
The people of the whole country demand free
and fair elections and honest returns which
Enthusiastically register the public will In such
elections, and such only, are the liberties of
our people, the permanency OF our institutions,
and the glory OF our country assured.
Mr.. Johnson's Reply.
The defense of Mr.. Dudley and the
other leaders OF the republican party was
made by Mr.. Johnson lind. }, who was the
leading speaker for the -
contestee. He said Sas4A
that he would not de- .sCSSM
scend to petty political NA&NM
discussion, alt b ough 3 Ss %%NSSEH
the temptation held ~S WV
out to him by his col w
laaoue from Indiana NlttNN II