Democratic Sentinel, Volume 13, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 April 1889 — CLAYPOOL vs. WOODS. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

CLAYPOOL vs. WOODS.

The C. B. & Q. has reduced wnge? of employes from 81.15 a dav to cents. Republican prosperity! The stealings of Sullivan, late clerk of Marion county, amount to over $47,000 The Chicago election, Tuesda , resulted in a complete Democratic victory. The labor element having failed to realize the good times promised to follow Harrison’s elevation united with Democracy to down the “twin relics” —Socialism and Republicanism. AV ebb Hayes, too, son of the Presidential fraud, is .an applicant for place Under the existing administrati >n. True, Hayes’ title was bad, but then Harrison, as the benK'iciary of Dudley’s crime, will regard his own title is little better, and will therefore appoint him as a member of the royal line.

Evansville, too, lias wheeled into the Democratic column, and the Democrats of that city are correspondingly happy. Tho managers of the late Winamac Prefect have disposed of the office to other parties who will revive it for a while under the name of the “Pulaski County Democrat.’ The Democratic Journal is a good paper, has been faithful to the Democracy, and the demise of the Prefect would indicate that there is not room for two Democratic papers in that county. May Democratic Journal wave. Rev. R. V. Huntx.r,of Indianapolis, announces that he :s as much in favoref prosecuting republican as democratic rase ds, has not a particle of doubt about ihe guilt of Dudley, and says if the law does not reach him it ought to be changed; at the same time he feels he is not competent to criticise Judge jWoods. Indianapolis Sentinel makes tile following ringing response: “But he is too modest by half in his assumptionTthat he is not competent to criticise Judge Woods’ rulings on points of law. The law is not a mystery. It is not an occult science. It is founded in common sense, and common sense is the best guide in its int3rpreta_ tion. When the law says, in so many words, is a crime to advise bribery, we may be very sure that the law means advising bribery is erime, and means nothing else. A hundred pettifogging judges could’not make'it otherwise. And if a judge rules one way when a democrat is brought before him, and the other way when republicans are brought before him, precisely the same point being involved iu each case, it needs no lawyer to see that he is not an honest judge, and thst, of his two rulings, the one which operates to protect crime and defeat the object of the law is, in reality, noi the law.”

Judge Woods, of the Federal court, is not jut now employing his time in censuring the g/and jury for failure to find indictments against violators of the election laws/ as he did in the cases of Cey and Bernhamer; nor is it probable that he will assume the role of prosecutor in cases that may come up for trial, as in those named. But he is engaged in

quashing indictments by the wholesale. Referring to Judge Woods’ action the Indianapolis News, republican, says: “Tne form of indictment returned in the election casej seta forth that the defendants “at an election Jor a Representative m Congress of the Un ted States * *

(i d unlawfully vote at said ekicti >n,” etc., etc., or “havin’’ offered to vote at said election,’ etc. — According to the court tlds is not huffieient; that it should be c rated in the indictment that defea ant voted unlawfully for Cengre^sma., before a federal offense is constituted. The indictment contemplates but one election —that for Congressman, and then it plainly charges that at “said election” the offense was committed. What could be plainer to common sense we can not conceive. It is nit alleged that there was an eleetiou for President, or Governor, or State officers, or Legislature, but only for Congressman, and then in saving that in voting at “said election” it will strike the average man that the very allegation is made which the court holds is not m ide, and the emission es which constitutes a defect. Grant it for argument. Why doesn’t the Court remedy the defect? It is retorted that it is not ihe Court’s business

o remedy such defects. The Court made it its business in the Coy case. Every avenue of approach was tried and ev ry defect rs process corrected to reach Coy; but when scores of Republicans are indicted an alleged “defect’’ opens the door to their escape. — These men were indicted bv a mixed jury of Republicans andgDemocrats That jury thought the evidence of their guilt sufficient to h'ld them; but now they go; the court does nothing; theJGovernment attorney declares he will do nothing. This thing is a shame, an outrage, a disgrace, and public opinion should rebuke it and see that the nerveless hands of justice are strengthened.” A Democratic paper could not h ive placed the situation before the public more truthfully.

We make the following extracts from a published interview with Judge Claypool: “Judge Woods says in substance that it was possible only under the law as defined i. his second instruction .’ to indict Dudley. If the judge had adhered t< his first instructions Dudley would have bee® indicted, and if he had never instructed the jury that to attempt to vote without having the le -al 1' ght to vote and to attempt’ to bribe, were not crimes, there wo’d have been scores more of indictments to quash. His last instructions rendered it practically impossible to indict Dudley, as in all such cases it would be under such interpretation of the law.— Dudley might have gone into a town meeting, or at some grand reception and publicly advocated and advised bribery without danger on account oi so advising, and withabaie possibility of danger on other grounds, owing to the fact that it would be practically impossible to trace the resuh’s of such advising, however much—that is any particular act of—bribery back 10 the fountain head of villainy—to the ‘instigator.’ The purpose of congress seemed to he to afford every possible protection to the purity of elections, bu<- if to ‘attempt tojvote illegally’ and ‘to attempt to bribe’ and ‘to advise bribery’ are not erimes, the efficiency of the law to proteet elections ia destroyed. A person, under such construction of the statute, ♦ an go from place to place attempting to vote illegally, attempting||to bribe voters, and ‘ad vising bribery, all publicly and without danger. Such a construction is an encouragement to election frauds. Where, in such a law, dees ‘some wisdom’ apfear? Judge Claypool then invites the attention of lawyers to the hw, as follows:

“In this connection I submit a [ few words for the legal profession, and invoke the attention and judgment of lawyers here and everywhere. Is it trvethata person] who attempts to vote illegally — ] that is, attempts to vote ‘at a place where he may not lawfully be entitled to a vote, or ‘attempts to vete without having a lawful right to vote’ —ir not guilty of a crime under sec. 5,511? Judge Wouds r. swots n Isay,yes. Toprove myself right I invite attention o secs. 2,022, 2,023, 5,514 and incidentally 5,512 Rea l these sections and see who is right. Let it b borne in mind that these sections are all t ken from original acts of May 31, 1870, and I eb. 8, 1871. Let it be borne in mind that the latter act is, in part, an sudatory of and in part suppiemental to the first act, and that they must, therefore, be constru -d together. In this connection it will add force to see how the original phraseology stood in the original sections, before changed for the purpose of codification, bee. 2,022 commands the marshal and his deputies at the polls, among other things, to ‘prevent fraudulent voting,’ and to arrest any person who ommits or attempts or offers to commit any of the acts or offenses prohibited herein’ (in the origin 4 ‘pr Uiibited bv this act or the act hereby amended,’which act contains 5,511) or who ‘commits any offense against the laws of the Unit d States,’ if the offens e is committed i the of t’.e marshal or his deputies. Sec. 2,023 commands that when an arrest is made the person arrested shall be carried before a U. S. commissioner or judge or court ‘for examination of the offense alleged against’ the person arrested. Can there be any doubt that under the provisions of this law a marshal and his deputies are commanded to arrest anyone whom they might see attempting to vote illegally, or attempting to bribe * oters, and also commanded to carry the person so arrested before a court or officer to be dealt with on a charge of an ‘offense alleged against’ him?Q If Judge Woods is right in hi« construction, no charge could be made for an attempt to vote illegally, cr for an attempt to bribe, notwithstanding illegal voting and bribery are both cr.mes denounced by sec. 5,511, and notwithstanding the command is to arrest fcr any ‘attempt’ or offer to commit these or any other offenses denounced by the statute. Sec. 5,514 declares what ‘shall be sufficient prima-facia evidence to convict any person charged with offering to vote unlawfully. But, according to the ruling of Judg» Woods, no s ch charge cm be made. Is he right in this ruling? Is it not perfectly clear that an attempt to vote, illegally, at an election for a representative in congress is a crime under sec. 5,511? h ould the judge again instruct that -t was not? If it be admitt id that such attempt to vote is a crime, as it must be admitted, then ‘an attepmt to bribe’ must also be a crime. Both depend upon the same language in. the same section, anu for like reason advising bribery’ is a crime.”

The best Sewing Machine in the market is the Eldredge. ’ al) the residence of Mrs. J. AV. McEwen, Agent, Rensselaer, Ind