The Indianapolis journal., 1903-02-16

made Saturday afternoon the foreman
and several of the the jurors tried 10
bring oct the facts in the case more clearly.
ATTITUDE OF THE THREE.
One on the jurors said that the two jurors
who refused 60 vote an acuuittal, contin-
gent upon the promise of the third. were
extremely obstinate. lie said they neither
argued against an acquittaI nor for a con-
yiction. They offered no reason for their
belief that Alexander was guilty man.
but stated their positions firmly and
pledged themselves to stand by them
A final effort was made yesterday morn
ing by the foreman to get the jury to
agree. Mr.. Gimble saw then that the jurors
had conscientiously voted their opinions
and would not be shaken from them. After
breakfast another effort was made, but IL
frgtitleSs the first. The jurors
who stood for acquittal dropped the ques-
tion and prepared themselves TO announce
10 tie court that an agreement was ut
terIy impossible. The report was made and
ali OF the juros5 those i9r acault,ai tis ana
fed that they had done their duty When
the court dismissed them from attendance
any longer
After the disagreement had been an
nDunced Henry n. Spaan, counsel for the
defense, was heard to- say that he be-
lieved the disagreement OF the jury was
a moral victory for the defense. and, al
though he had expected an acqulttal, ne
was satisfied that on consideration of the
law aud evidence the jury believed MS
client to be not guilty.
Martin Hugg attorney for Dr. Alexander,
also seemed satisfied with the report or the
jury. Mr.. Hugg believed that since a jury
of twelve men had failed to come To an
agreement on the guilt or innocence OF Dr.
Alexander. after the notoriety given the
case In the newspapers. the bitter talk
against DR. Alexander. the public sentiment
against his client, which had been so
strong that fund was raised for his prose-
cution by uninterested persons, his client
was, as he declared. an innocent and
Wrongfally accused man. DR.. Alexander
said nothing except 10 his attorneys, but
walked from the courtroom into the private
Office of the judge steadily and seemingly
well pleased with the result. He left shortly
afterward and started to his home TO tell
Mrs Alexander Of the jury's report.
VIEW OF THE PROSECUTION.
The attorneys for the State, John c.
RuckeIshaus and Charles Benedict. showed
no disappointment. Prosecutor Ruckelshaus
said: I'VE submitted to the jury all of
the evidence obtainable and conscientiously
tried to bring out the truth. 1 believe that
the evidence was convincing and 1 also be-
lieve that under the instructions from the
judge we could hope for nothing better
than a disagreement"
Deputy Prosecutor Benedict viewed the
disagreement philoSophically and expressed
himself as pleased that the jury had dis
agreed In that an acquittal was not Sc
cured
What the disagreement means is uncer-
tain The grand jury has returned thirty
six indictments against the ghouls and
those presons accused of being accessory
to the crimes. These cases have all been
held secondary to the Alexander case, In
which the most positive evidence was to be
introduced Since Alexander's case resulted
in a disagreement a conviction seems
so uncertain I'm the other cases that trial
OF them Is unlikely. The ghouls, the self
m aad of
on their confessions of guilt and they may
ee sent TO the penitentiary. The physicians