The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-04
FIRST PAGE

CONCLUDED FROM FIRST PACED
| in the paths that lead to heavenly joys, but
the veriest tyro among the wicked work
ers in the political field.
There are others-and they are all hon
orable men-whose shoe latches we COM
mon men are not worthy to unloose, and
1 will characterize them by saying, of
such Is the kingdom of heaven
These men all worthy men and
their cause is worthy one but on account
of the errors and self-seeking of a few
among them, they sit now covered with
confusion and with shame-faced righteous
ness, they have been compelled to listen to
the proof of the downfall of scheme to
which they were not active parties but
the burden of which the unthinking pub
lie will compel them to bear, because of
him who processes much, much is ex-
pected.
Il hate to think that if this scheme
against Mr.. Logsdon had succeeded that
these really good gentlemen would have
rejoiced. Let us hope for the honor of
and that they would have been just as
sorry for the success of the scheme as
they now look at its defeat. 1t Is an
arduous task to be true reformer and
we must not be too severe in passing judg-
ment upon schemes which originate from
such a source. 1t is given TO but few of
the few, mainly through approximation,
we should judge them kindly, If perchance
other self-seeking men bring their plans to
naught in this wicked world"
COMPRlSES THREE CRIMES.
Taking up his statement of the law, Mr.
Span pointed out that the statute COM
prises three crimes. 1t speaks of giving
promising or offering money to one who
holds an office of trust or profit under the
laws of the State. There is no question
of giving money in this case, he de-
clared, but there is a question of promising
money, possibly offering it. There is no
doubt as to Mr.. Logsdon coming within
the meaning of the statute when il speaks
of one holding an office of trust or profit
under the laws of the State. This part
of the statute" he said, was made broad
guarding the integrity of the public serv-
ice. In the breadth of the statute ii does
not matter whether public officer be
connected with negotiation leading 70
bribery. We are contending that Stahl is
guilty Of combining and conspiring to cor
ruptly offer money to man who falls
within the meaning of the law as 1t defines
a public officer.
They say that Mr.. Logsdon could have
accepted $3.50 without committing a crime.
That. your honor, is a most monstrous
their brothers keepers. Consider, IL you
please. what the logical carrying out of
such doctrine would lead to; how many
such a pernicious cloak. The intent of
the Legislature which enacted that law
was to absolutely prevent all such cor
ruptl0n. siam cOmmltteu crime by
corrupt offer, as is plain to be seen under
the statute
THE crime is complete when the criminal
has completed his criminal act no matter
what attitude Mr.. Logsdon may or may
not have taken. AS soon as the criminal
has shown his criminal mind the crime is
rounded out, IL does not matter what Mr.
Logsdon's part was in the eye of the law
ACTING AS A DECOY.
"The contention of the defense is that the
man was simply acting as decoy; that
there was no criminal intent; that he
ought to be discharged They base their
contention on the decision of the Supreme
Court In the Banks case. which is so famil-
lar to all of us that it is not necessary for
me to even outline it. The court there held
that it was error to exclude from the jury
| evidence showing the motives of the de-
Tense The court. however, never laid
down the doctrine that the matter Of mo-
tives furnished complete defense All the
defense could do was to offer the state
ments of their witnesses as to motives
but a pretense real or pretended as the
court or the jury may determine. Such a
defense may be false and fabricated That
| Is left for the court or the jury to decide
| In this the doctrine of the Banks case is
clearly not present.
1.-The responsible men In this case are
four-Hilton l.. Brown, James w Noel
DR. George Edwin Hunt and their stool
pigeon. Stahl II is confessed and admitted
| that they had no evidence against Logsdon
] II Is confessed and admitted that there is q