Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 August 1887 — Why He Chose to Blast His Reputation [ARTICLE]

Why He Chose to Blast His Reputation

tation. Indianapolis Sentinel Special. Washington, D. 0., Aug. 3. Indiana people in Washington have watched with considerable interest the outcome of the late conspiracy trial. While there may have been different opinions as to the guilder innocence of some of the accused, there is but one opinion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the presiding judge. H ? has been partisan from the beginning, and his charge—just received here today—is the sum of all j udicial outrage. Many personsjsay that whatj ever may have been the conductor the defendants last November, it has been more than condoned by the conduct of the judge on the bench, -arbo, forgetting his position, turned his court into an office for the prosecution such as will make the skeleton fingers of Jeffiies in his coffin rustle together for joy. To say nothing of the fact at this time that since Indiana was admitted into the Union has partizanship been never wantonly promulgated from the bench, it is to be m.ted, that in all the trials in Indiana’s capital, the opponents of Democracy who have been indicted in the Federal Court for crimes growing out of political offenses are few. I recall now but one. There may have been more.

It is well known in Indianapolis that since 1859, when Col. Drake was counted out for Auditor there has not been an honest election when the Republicans had the opportunity to be dishonestIn 1860, when the ballot boxes <ere taken to the jail and Democratic tickets taken out and Republican tickets substituted for them, and in 1864, when Massachusetts soldiers amused themselves by knocking down Democrats, and voting early and often themselves, and encouraging minors, sons ok prominent citizens, to do the same, Repbulicans had their own ’’ay and no Court was ready to make them afraid. Sammy Beck was counted out for Treasurer, John Fishback was counted'fout for Mayor, Dan Lemon counted out, other Democrats counted out scores of times, and no Federal Judge raked a Grand Jury for not returning indictments. I am rot alluding to these by-

gone outrages to excuse the conduct of any wrong doer, but with such a record of crime repeated year after year, is it any wonder, when Republican judges stand idly by, view them with calm, pass them over w thont action, that in a case like the one just cleared, that people awaken to the fact that in the United States Supreme Court there n punishments for only one class of offenses against the purity of the ballot box, and to that class belong Democrats? Republics jb go “scot free ’, in common parlancethe jail, stripes, ignominy and disgrace for Democrats alone. When such unfairness is exhibited federal j udges need not be surprised if the people refuse to listen to their parfizan harangues, and jurors refuse to return verdicts in answer to partizan jury speeches from the bench.

Judge Woods is a lawyer, presumed to be a good one, and no one knows better than himself, that such a charge as he delivered in the conspiracy trials, had he been sitting as a trial judge in the Marion Criminal Court, would not have stood long enough on appeal to the Supreme Court of our State, to be knocked down. He would not, for his own judicial reputation, have dared to deliver such a charge, and he knows that fact as well as anyone can know it. Had there been an appeal in the case just tried, the judicial ermine would not have been soiled by such a speech, for it was not a charge, but a speech for the prosecution ns able and strong as any made. Why he chose to blast his reputation for fairness he can best answer for himself. He knows, or onght to know that when a Judge ceases to be a Judge and becomesa public prosecutor, his influence for good is gone; unfortunately his influence for evil remains. When people onse know that no party except the one to which the Judge belongs, can have fair treatment in his Court, the respect due to his position is forfeited, and he has no one to blame but him; elf. To take such an unfair advantage of his position because there is no appeal is both cowardly and tyrannical. Such conduct merits contempt, nay, more, it merits impeaehmont.

In alluding to the partisan aspect of the case, and speaking of the effect of a conviction should Sullivan be found guilty, Judge Woods makes the lowest partisan appeal to the Democrats on the jury, and says: “I think there is evidence enough before this jury as to the control of affairs at the court house to enable you to know that there is a Board of Democratic Commissioners over there and if Sullivan loses his office it would go into Democratic hands. But that is not a proper consideration for us one way or the other. If Mr. Sullivan is not guilty he should hold his office and it does not necessarily follow that he should lose his office even if he is guilty.” Read that again and think of it> citizens of Indiana! What is it but a plea to the Democrats in the jury to join with Hieir Republican brethren and find a verdict of guilty, because they will thereby surrender no partizan advantage?— What is it but an implied promise that if they,will find Sullivan guilty (he t-kes it for graft’d Republicans will so find), he will see that they lose nothing, but simply inflict a fine as he did upon Perkins Without imprisonment. He says: “The punishment prescribed by the statute, under which this prosecution is based, are with the control of the court within certain limitations.” The question will naturally arise if the jury and himself had nothing to do with the paitisan aspect of the case, why it was necessary to allude to it and tell the jurors that Democrats wo’d come to no harm in Marion County as Democrats by a vei diet of guilty ? It will not do; he can not escape the net he has spread. He did not spread it for hims If, but, nevertheless, he is caught in it. In effect Judge Woods’s charge is this: “Gentlemen, Democrats of the jury, you need have no fears of losing the clerk’s office in Marion County if you find John Sullivan guilty. You have the County Commissioners, and if I conclude to send him to the penitentiary y ;u can have another Democrat in his place; and I am not sure any how that I will send him north I may cpnclm e, Democratic juro s, + o let him off with a fine as I did Perkins. In that event no harm is done to your party organization. Can partizanship sink lower? Is it possible for a judge to make a baser appeal to :he partizan in stincts of men who are solemnly sworn to try a case according to the law and the testimony? The crimes of the accused become insignificant in view of su«h 4 spectacle. In modern political trials is it possible to find an appeal so low as this?

Think of such an appeal falling from the lips of McLean, Davis, Huntington, David McDonald, AV hite and Gresham, men who shed luster on the Federal bench in Indiena in days gone by. Sue a thought is almost daring, for such a thing would have been impossible in any of the above named. In thus begging Democrats to find a verc r guilty because they will sush. .a no party loss, Judge Woods has placed imself in aposition not to be envied. It is to be hoped that if he agai n essays the task of piosec. : a, hr will be more guarded in his language, because such partisan charges will be but sorry ornaments in the pages of the law reviews.