The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-11-03

the Federal Court in indianapolis shortly
AFTER the war, when party spirit was at its
lehIlh Inc Democratic treasurer OF Jen-
hihSs county was on trial. General Harrl-
son appeared for the prosecution and eX
governor Hendricks for the defense. The
regular panel of jurymen was in the box.
Judge Walter q. Gresham was on the
bench. Mr.. Hendricks first appealed TO the
court Tor political poll Of the jury, and
then Tor special jury 10 be composed OF
an equal number from the Democratic and
Republican parties He made a most earn
est and eloquent plea that justice 10 his
client and the political character OF the
case demanded that the jury should be
evenly divided between the two leading
political parties. and no advantage be given
over his client by the insidious influences Of
a prepOnderating partisan bias in the jury.
Judge Gresham, an ardent Republican, very
promptly granted the request and a new
jury was impaneled asked for by Mr..
Hendricks. Compare this act OF justice.
based on the proposition that no political
prejudice or advantage should enter into
the jury box. with the record OF the court
and jury in the cases that have SO far had
a nearing IN the trials Of the alleged muir
derers of Mr.. Goebel
On this subject Thomas Jefferson wrote:
An officer who is intrusted by the law
with the sacred duty of naming judges of
life and death for his fellOw-citizens and
who selects them from among his political
and party friends. ought never to have In
dOUs magnitude
Does not the action Of the Court of APP
peaIs OF Kentucky. in its reversal of the in
ltlal convictions in Judge Cantrills court,
emphasize the contention OF the Governor
or this commonwealth that these men
sought to be extradited cannot secure a fair
ana Just hearing? Judge Cantrill. candi-
date for a United States senatorship, in
structed jury that Ii might convict on the
testimony OF one alleged accomplice If that
testimony was, cOrrObOrated by that of an
other alleged accomplice: that it might con-
Wet the defendant for the act of another
man, to which the defendant had never
agreed. and which was not the necessary
or probable consequence of anything to
which the defendant had agreed. 1t is re-
markable that the trial court compelled the
defendant to answer the prosecutors ques-
tons in relation to other crimes than the
one for which he was on trial, and then,
over protests, permitted the specially en-
ployed attorney for the prosecution to
make an lmpaSSlOned plea 10 the jury to
hang the defendant on accusations entirely
outside of the record. To such perversiOn
OF justice | will not consent TO consign any
citizen OF this commonwealth, be his resi-
dence temporary or permanent
INDUSTRIOUS RULINGS
The monstrous rulings and instructions
of the court, with its vicious partisanship
further represented by jury unanimously
made up of GOebel Democrats is of itself
sufficient cause for refusal of your re-
quest; but, added TO this, L have on file
letters and protests from many representa-
tive Democrats of your State, prominent in
the organization of the party, and from
editors of Democratic newspapers, univer-
sally condemning the persecution in the
Goebel trials as travesty upon justice
and urging that no acquisitions be hon
ored for Mr.. Taylor and Mr.. Finley until
reason has resumed sway and the good
name Of Kentucky, in its procedure under
the law in its courts be restored
L had hoped the trial of Caleb Powers
just concluded, would demonstrate that the
efforts of the prosecution were really to
determine who the murdererS Of Mr.. Goebel
were in a way that would convince the
people of the country of a sincere deter
minatiOn to this end; that the Jury would
be selected for its integrity rather than Its
rartlsansElD; that the court would remem-
Der Its obligations as judge rather than
Its aspirations for a Senatorship: that the
rules OF evidence having universal recOg
nltlon III all the States OF the Republic
would be followed in this latest trial, es-
pecially in view of the reversal OF the
Court of Appeals in the former trials 1t
Is deep disappointment that the utter
disregard of justice which marked the pre-
vious trial as notorious in the sec
ond trial of Powers as in the first Con-
sequentiy l can only voice my condemna-
ton thereof by refusing to honor your
requlsltlOn, which, in effect, would make me
a party to the conviction and punishment
OF two reputable citizens of Indiana.
when better assurances OF a fair and
impartial trial of Messrs. Taylor and Fin
ley shall be given by the trial of those
now in Kentucky under indictment for par
uC1patlOn in the assassination of Mr. COe-
bel and the record of the procedure shall
show that an impartial judge sat on the
tench and nonpartisan jurors filled the
box, your acquisitions will be honored.
Until the time comes that justice is melted
out to those now under the Jurisdiction of
the courts of Kentucky a requisition lead
ing to such a traVesty upon Justice as tho
last trial of Caleb Powers presented will
not be hOnored by the surrender of citizens
or Indiana by any official act of mine.