The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-10-18
UNABLE TO AGREE.
INCLUDED FROM FIRST PAGE,

CONCLUDED FROM FIRST PAGE.)
boxes at washington and held that he
was not then given an opportunity TO pre-
sent his own case. He reviewed the bet
ting schemes of John j. Ryan &c Co., and
impeached Ryan and other witnesses. He
said Christiancy was the judge who passed
on the Ryan cases and that Miller simply
appeared as the governments attorney.
The article in the Washington News, for
which the data was furnished by Clerk
Huebener, of the Postoffice Department,
passed on the Ryan case favorably in
stead OF Miller
IN BEHALF OF JOHNS.
Charles w. Baker. as attorney for Johns,
in reviewing proceedings at Washington
when Judge Outcalt appeared before the
department. with Ryan, held that the de-
partment promised to notify Ryans attor-
neys of the decision and that Johns after
ward becoming the attorney of Ryan was
so notified. Baker insisted that Miller had
the fraud orders issued against Ryan and
afterward had the mail of Ryan d Co. held
up and was really the one who was caus.
ing trouble for JohnS'S client, so that there
could have been no understanding between
Miller and Johns. In reviewing all that
was done at Washington Baker said the
indictment of Miller and Johns was due
more TO the inexperience OF General Robb
who had recently been admitted TO the bar
than 70 the indiscretion OF the Defendants
Ito boost" themselves by the persecution
OF the two country lawyers and he
charged that the stenographic notes of
Watson had been garbled after they were
taken down in concealed corner OF Bris-
lows office.
Mr.. Baker argued that Ryan tried to
get Johns to bride Miller. and failing to
do so turned on them with charges, and
that the case was based on suspicion out
side of Ryan's testimony. Baker insisted
that there could be no conspiracy without
| IL e
secured dollar in which Miller had any
interest
District Attorney Sherman Mcpherson
closed the case. He paid a high tribute
to General Robb and others who had assist
ed the government while he was replying
TO the scathing statements of Ruison and
Baker. Then he went over the cases Of
Johns and Miller. both separately and
jointly, laying special stress on kilograms
of Johns notifying Ryan & Co. at ST. Louis
in advance last November that the inspect
ors were coming and insisting that Johns
could get this information only through
Miller and that Johns used it for the pur-
pose of securing money from Ryan. Nc
PherSOn said Ryan never hunted for Johns
had advance information from Miller when
he did so and such information as to show
conspiracy s tb 1eIWeen d9 ffan While going
defendants he laid most stress on the "Jim
telegram" that was sent notifying Johns
had been mailed him and that Johns then
Immediately communicated with Ryan and
sent the dispatch advising Ryan that he
was ready to settle on cash basis. Nc
Pherson said that he did soon afterward
meet Ryan in Cincinnati and delivered
the decision upon receipt of $500. Nc
Pherson closed shortly before o'clock with
an eloquent appeal for the government.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
Judge A. c. Thompson was an hour and
a quarter in delivering his charge TO the
jury. He reviewed the testimony in detail
for the prosecution and referred also to
that OF the defendant. While the charge
was conceded to be an unusually able and
impartial one. counsel for the government
appeared more satisfied than those for
the defendant after the delivery. The court
| paid special attention TO the testimony of
| John ]. Ryan and instructed the jury not
| TO throw il aside account OF the char
| acter OF the witness. but 10 give il due
| consideration wherein ii was corroborated
/ by other witnesses or documentary evil
dence that had been admitted. The charge
| held that there must be an overt act TO
| establish a conspiracy and that while there
| cept I'm the testimony OF Ryan as 10 what
| Jones had proposed to him. yet there was
much circums tantial evidence to that ef-
| feet The main question for the Jury 10
settle in its rniDd was whether Miller had
| knowledge of what took place between
| Johns and Ryan and whether Johns was
/ torney OF tho assistant attorney general
/ for the Postofice Department The court
told the jury that there could be no verdict
/ finding one of the defendants guilty and
| the other innocent that both must be con-
victed or be acquitted and that no SYM
pathy or sorrow or any prejudice should
| enter into their finding, although the testi-
mony bearing on the previous regulations
of the defendants was TO be considered the
same as other evidence.
liz was almost 8 o'clock when the court
and the counsel on both sides settled upon
| such records. letters, teiegrams and other
j documents as should go 10 the jury. The