The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-02

look at it? Al had looked at the section
| on bribery the afternoon before met them
| In the evening at DR.. Hunts house.
| win what purpose In view? A;-Ie
examine the law on the subject of bribery
| and TO ascertain whether IL Mr. Logsdon
did accept money he would be guilty OF
| crime.
Q.-That was what you were looking VI
| the law for? Ayes, sir.
Odd you look up the law at that time
TO see whether your stooipigeon, Stahi
would be guilty of crime in trying &c
| get him TO take money? Al knew he
was for Mr.. Logsdon to take the money
knew it was not bribery when 1t was
Q.-At that time you had no evidence
whatever that MIR. Logsdon had ever been
guilty of bribery: had you? A.-No, sir. II
he had taken this money he would not be
| OWN you please answer my question
Al will answer now and qualify my
answer. AT that time, however, we had
| information indicating that he had been
securing money from gamblers for protec-
| ton.
! Q-That is the information that you had
Ayes, sir.
Q.-Procured from your co-conspirator
| Stahl? A.-And from public rumor. yes, sir
Q-And from public rumor gathered from
t the tha iIS NEWS! AN1 o. sr l DON
edge. has had any such statements in its
columns.
.Q.-Do you justify trying to bride man
| simply because 1t has been rumored that
| he was guilty? Al will say
Q.-Answer that question. Al still say
| now, and qualify my answer by saying you
Q-Am questioning or are you? A-You
| are questioning, but you should confine
| your questions
THE BRIBERY STATUTE.
Q.-what is your qualification? Avery
lawyer knows that if Mr.. Logsdon had ac-
| cepted this money he would not be guilty
under the statute.
OIL want to know what evidence you
| had against him besides rumors? "A
rumor and reports that had come from Mr..
| Stahl.
Q.-That is the only evidence that you
| had that Mr.. Logsdon had been securing
| gambling money. Ayes, sir.
Q.-Now then, your investigation had been
gong on a whole month, hadn't 1t? Al
| don't know whether 1T was a month or not,
| nearly month.
Q.-And you had been given free swing,
according to your own statement, by your
committee? Ayes, sir; but we had not
| yet got into that department Of investiga-
| ton.
Q.-Now, then. when you consulted the
| statute to see what it had to say upon the
| question of bribery you thought that Mr..
J Stahl would not be guilty in offering him
that money, did you? Avery evidently,
| yes, sir.
Odd you ever try case in which that
| statute was construed? A.-No, sir
Odd you read one in which it was
| construed? Al think i read the Banks
! not read it lately.
Q.-Don't you know the Banks case was
| not prosecuted under that statute at all?
Al guess you are right; the Banks case
was prosecuted under the election laws.
| No. have not read case that was con-
| strued under that statute.
| Q.-How long did ii take you to investi-
gate this statute? A.-About five minutes.
Q.-And with that kind of investigation,
and with that knowledge, you came to the
| conclusion that your man Stahl would not
| be guilty in Offering money to Mr.. Logs
| don? A-The application of a few very
elementary rules to that statute was suffi-
| cient to construe it.
Q.-What elementary rules did you have
| In your mind then, and what elementary
| rules have you now in your mind? Aft
you want to know what the elementary
| rules are, Mr.. Span, there are two or
| three.
OIL want to know what you know about
| 1t. A.-Well, the elementary rules that
there are no crimes in Indiana except those
| that are made crimes by statute, statutory
| crimes. The criminal statutes are strictly
construed, and all else that is necessary is
| to read the statutes
$50 that the elementary principles that
| you had in your mind were that criminal
| statutes are strictly construed-and the
| other one was what? A.-That there are
no crimes in Indiana except statutory
| crimes.
O.-Well, how much light did that throw
| on this matter? A.-Taken together with
the statute they were sufficient to con-
Q.-That is. you considered it sufficient
| Ayes, sir. ~
| Section aoos was it NOT? Al don't re-
member the number of the section.
| Q.-Now this statute reads this way:
to any holding amy oe
| trust or profit under the laws OF the State
money or things of value is guilty" Isn't
| that it? Ayes, sir.
APPLIES TO LOGSDON.
Q-Didn't Mr.. Logsdon hold an office of
trust or profit under this statute? Ayes
| sir.
Q.-This describes him, doesn't It? Al
presume he falls under that / don't want
| to make an argument
Q.-There is not the slightest danger that
you will in this case. A.-When make an
argument against you / want an equal
chance.
OIL am simply trying to find out what is
! in your mind. ''And money or valuable
thing" That applies to him, doesn't it:
| Mr.. Span read the entire section.
| Q.-How many crimes are described in
| that section? A.-Two; the giving of brides
/ ana the SOIlC1tlQS OIL DT1DeS.
Q.-There are four, are there not? Ali
you will give me half hour here to argue
Mr.. Duncan-He wants to know what was
| In your mind.
Alt was in my mind there were two
| crimes.
Q-And you came to the conclusion and
/ so advised those people that 1t would have
to influence his action as an Office, did you
not before he would be guilty of a crime
| did you not? A.-Ies, sir; before Mr.. Logs
| don would be guilty OF a crime.
| Q.-When did you consider Mr.. Skahl to be
| guilty of a crime? A.-You are asking for
| my legal opinion.
| Q.-At that time there must have been
| something in your mind. A.-What was in
| my mind at this time was this: 1t is another
nal intent must be present and that in a
| decoy where simply test was being made
of a man. the criminal intent was absent
and therefore it was not crime. That is
recognized all the world over and by all
| courts.
| Odd you have in your mind to simply
| show it was used as decoy, that that was
| a sufficient defense in case of this kind
| Al don't know whether I so stated to
| those gentlemen; but had it in my mind
| and still have 1t in my mind that the
| criminal intent must be present, and that
| ii was not present unless there is an at
| tempt to actually corrupt the man.
| Q.-Dont get off on the question Of intent
| Was il in your mind that II was sufficient
| to show that the teleg. am was to be used
| for a deeoy, that that would be complete
defense? Was that in your mind? Al,
certainly was. That was not the only
defense.
| Q.-But it was to be a defense that 1t was
! decoy. That was to be the defense. was