The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-12-29


This is the closing statement of the grand jury
which spent three months and many thousands of
dollars in an investigation of the charges of graft
and corruption made by D. G. Stephenson.
1t closes report which returned no indict-
ments and gave a vindication to STATE officials,
Insofar as a mere statement that no one produced
any evidence or that Stephenson failed to give up
any documents he might have, is vindication.
Why is it that no one connected with the grand
jury has shown either resentment or curiosity con-
cerning this peculiar statement which is at least
peculiar and than intriguing?
Why is it that there is one, directly in
directly connected with that jury who has demanded
In plain language what those conditions were?
No other grand jury has even made such a re-
port. 1t is unique in the history of criminal pro-
cedure 1t is significant and damning.
Judge Collins, when he received this report,
showed not the slightest inclination to inquire what
this grand jury meant.
That is unfortunate, for the jurors then
under his direction and control and might have
been persuaded perhaps some of them very easily,
to have publicly explained why it that this
cryptic statement was added to it's report.
Judge Collins then had his opportunity to
inquire what unusual conditions then existed in that
grand jury which made it necessary to call attention
to them in this
But he showed no curiosity and that opportunity
for the people to learn went and went forever.
There are just three factors which could create
such unusual conditions in any grand jury to
make such comment possible
The first of these is in the membership of the
grand jury itself 1t requires five of the six votes
to return an indictment. 1t is quite thinkable that
there were two more men on that jury vindc-
tive at heart that they may have insisted on indct-
ing innocent men for the purpose of revenge.
That, Of course, would have been against their
oath of Office and condition which ought to interest
the Legislature and the court and, perhaps, the
prosecutor.
And if there vndictive that jury
who insisted on writing into their verdict damning
phrases, such to be found there, limitations
in language such the singing out of State Of
ficials and casting suspicion city and county
officials, recommendations for a further investi
cation which might give them their victims, why
should not the public know the facts?
But if the general rumor be true and there were
four men on that jury who insisted that they had
evidence of corruption and graft sufficient to return
indictments who rebelled against merely referring
to perjuries insisted punishment for prurors,
who not content merely to call attention to
those who had fled and defed the courts of the
State, then why should not the public know this
fact? Why should not the names Of the two who
blocked action, if they did, be made public?
Were the conditions created by members of the
jury, who, in the belief of other members, dis
regarded their oaths of office and betrayed the
State? The people have right to know.
The second factor is the legal staff of that jury
and if these advisers responsible for the state
ment of unusual conditions, then surely the people
have right to know.
There was the attorney general of this State,
arthur Gilliom, who appeared when the jury was
charged with the duty of investigating fraud.
is Judpp Uh
special prosecutor upon the insistence of Gom
when Prosecutor Remy brought to that court
as his special deputy, Ralph Kane.
These are the four. 1t is a matter Of record
that two of these deputies, Judge Cause and Ralph
Kane, each received from the contingent funds of
Governor Jackson fee of $500 for services rem
dered, fee which lawyers would agree was not ex-
orbitant unusual.
Did the jury believe that these prosecutors, any
all of them, created condition where no
other report than the it made could be agreed
upon?
Certainly these men who acted as interrogators
of Witnesses interpreters Of the law, cannot afford
TO have the jury they advised leave the situation
under suspicion and doubt by such a report.
The people have right to know whether they,
or any of them, created unusual conditions which
hampered the jury
The people have a right and these lawyers and
Qualification of the mystery report
The third factor is outside influence, of politics
and politicians, of threats pressure, which may
have been exerted
Was that jury or any of the jurors Under duress
or under sinister control which prevented them re-
turning a different and perhaps less nconclusive
report?
Did the secrets of that grand jury escape and
did any juror witness prosecutor carry them to
oHyho ad
ing its report?
Were there those who knew without authority
what was going on and did they their power to
send emssaries to the cell Of Stephenson prevail
upon him to change his mind from the state in
which he penned his wholesale charges of cor
ruption?
Were there influences at work which made the
prophecy Of Stephenson than two weeks ago,
that there would be indictments but that the
vote on every would be fNlr to two, more than
guess work and matter of actual information?
Tho haNyo rUht fn oIn nd nIofo