Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 February 1890 — SPEECH OF HON. D. W. VOORHEES, OF INDIANA, [ARTICLE]

SPEECH OF HON. D. W. VOORHEES, OF INDIANA,

In the Senate of the United States, Wednesday, January 8, 1890. fCoritinued from lasx week. ] Sir, this charge, carefully made by Judge Woods upon the first assembling of the grand jury, so tully and completely covered the case of Dudley and his allies, whoever they might be, that a feeling of satisfaction spread throughout the state, and even thos who had been declared defeated at the polls took some consolation in the prospect that the conspirators who bad won a corrupt victory in Indiana by the power vs money would be speedily exposed, and one or more of them brought to justice. Dudley, in the name and by the authority of his committee, had committed the pr cise offense so clearly defined by the judge—he nad counseled nd advised the persons to whom his letter was addressed to have a certain class of people entitled to vote segregated from their fellow-

citizens on election day, put ipt© little flocks or blocks of five to themselves, in charge of a trusted man with the necessary funds to enable him to see to it that none got away, .nd that all voted the Republican ticket. He had advised an extensive attempt to bribe voters, and Judge Woods declared that to be an offense under the statute, for which a penalty of £SOO and three years’ imprisonment could be inflicted on the convicted offender. At this point, however, the leaders of the Repub 1 ican party, not only Indiana but throughout the entire country, were seized with alarm at the idea of a trial in court wherein com mittee consultations, plans, assessments, and expenditures with which to debauch the ballot would be all dragged ruth’essly to the light, and paraded before an indignant and disgusted public.— They awakened to their danger and found an abyss of ruin yawning at their feet.

From this time forwaid, for the next sixty days at least, dates are of great importance m connection with events which ma ked a reaction in Judge Woods’ court against the policy with which he had started out, of an honest, impartial administration of the law. The grand jury being in session only two days after receiving the charge of the judge, adjourned on the 16th of November, not to meet again until December the 4th.— Here was a delay of nearly three weeks on the side of justice, but as the’sequel showed there was no delay &r lack of vigilance on the side of conscious or terrified guilt. On or about the 28th of November, wnile the grand jury was yet in recess, Dudley told prominent men of both political parties whom he met|in New York that his pockets w?r full of dynamite, and if h > was indicted and prosecuted a very loud explosion would occur. He did not intend that his associates and co-workers in the campaign, while enriched by the spoils of victory and glittering with official honers and isti action, should

look on his arraignment, trial, and Inevitable conviction with a complacent sense of security to thems Ives. His threats ot dynamite were well understood in certain quarters which had power to pro« tect him. He had carried and disbursed the corruption fund of his party for eight years in Indiana, and was in possession of political secrets of a character to humble and bring low many a proud head if he was abandoned to his fate. Dudley is a staunch and extreme man; nor do I think him wanting ’n personal fidelity to tLose with whom he breaks bread and eats salt; but to go to the itentirry not merely for his own

sins, but also as a sea do-goat for the sins of others, who from high places were intending to let him make the journey alone, was more than even hie patriotic devoion to the Republican party and his personal adhesion to Harrison could stand. He pointed to the wellknown dynanjite in his pockets, and the menacing gesture and hint were heeded with startling vromp* titude. grand jury reassembled December 4, pursuant to ad* journment, and within the next four days it was kn. wn fr m the witnesses who had been called and testified that an overwhelming case hid been made against Dudley, and that his indictment was an assured fact under the rulings of the court as they then stood. Suddenly, December 9, Judge Woods adjourned court at Indianapolis to hold a week’s term at Fort Wayne, which term at Fort Wayne, I have been informed, lasted one hour and foDy m mutes, and involved the trial of one very unimportant and trivial case. But time had been gained, and the

grand jury*did not reassemble until December 17. In the meantime the district attorn y in charge of the case resigned, and Mr. Bailey, an able and very competent man was appointed in his place. Thereupon a most singular coincidence took place between the views of Republicans at Washington and at Indianapolis. Republican Senators, with singular unanimity and promptnes •, declared for the ear of the public, that they would under no circumstances allow-Bai-ley to be confirmed, while Judge Woods, with equal promptness and publcity, declared that he would under no circumstances receive an indictment from the grand jury signed by Mr. Bailey until he had been confirmed as United States district attorney by the Senate. Pending these qu' er complications the Hon. Mr. Quay, chairman of the Republican national committee and Senator from Pennsylva-

nia, arrived at Indianapolis, De cember 18, and held repeated and protracted conferences with those who held the fate of Dudley and the interests of the Republican party in the hollow of their hands. It is not for me to essume to de termine (he precise character <~f the Senator's mission or the subjects he discussed, but inasmuch as his name was at the head of the Dudley letter, giving it the official weight of the committee — Mr. Quay Will the Senator allow me? The Vice President. Do-s the Senator from Indiana yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania? Mr. Voorhees. Certain'y, sir. Mr. Quay. I will state to the Senator from Indiana that it is not true that in Indianapolis I conferred with those who held the Republican party in the hollow of their hands or consulted with any one in relation to the case of Mr. Dudley. Mr. Voorhees. The hands ot those with whom he consulted were rather small, it is true, but to the extent of their palms they held the destiny of the Republican party in their hands. Does the Senator deny that he called on Presidentelect Harrison?

Mr. Quay. I called on Presi-dent-elect Harrison. , Mr. Voorhees. Certainly the Senator did . No w, I repeat (and X will ask the attention of the Senator, for I do net Intend to do him a mite of injustice), it is not for me to assume to determine the precise character of the Senator’s mission or the subjects he discussbut inasmuch as his ilame is at the head as the Dudley latter, g ving it the official weight of the committee, and inasmuch as he has never denied or disclaimed Dudley’s authority to put it there, I am sure he will not blame me if I draw a big inference that he wanted the prosecution of Dudley stopped, and that he went to Indianapolis to say so, and that he did say to ’n quarters where it would “do the most good,” and with an emphasis whicn was not forgotte..

It is not only the tree that is known by its fruits; men are krown and their motives and conversations often clearly understood by the results which follow their presence and conduct. Another adjournment of the court and the grand iury followed the advent of the chairman of the National Re. publican Committee, this time suspending all action and going over from December 23 to January 14, a period of full three weeks. And then, when the court and grand jury came together again, the object for which justice had been'delaved, and jockeyed, and juggled so long in the interest o’ partisan crime, was speedily made manifest

On the 15th day of January, 1889, a day long to be remembered in the history of the judiciary with shame, Judge Woods delivered what is known as his supplemextal charge to the grand jury, in which h? explicitly oven u led his charge of November 14, and held—- “ Thar the mere sending by one to another of a letter or document containing advice to bribe » voter, or setting forth a scheme for such bribery, however bold and repreh nsible, is not indictable; that th' re must be shown in addition an attempt by the receiver of the letter, or of some other instigated by him, to execute the scheme by bribing, or attempting to crib?, some voter in respect to rhe election of Con rressmen, or in such way as to affect such election.” This is the gist of the famous or rather the infamous second charge to the Federal grand jury at Indianapolis, whereby Dudley and his confederate? were enabled to escape, at least for the time being, from the lashes of the law. In his first charge Judge Woods, in the plain simple words of section 5511, had told the jury that to counsel or advise any one io at-1 tempt to bribe a voter was an ( dictable offense. In his seccrna

I charge he says that such counsel or advice, whether in a k tter or otherwise, setting forth a scheme of bribery, hpwever bold or reprehensible, is not indictable in his court. To make it so he declares there must be shown, in addition, that the person receiving the letter, who may be unknown to the grand jury, and legally described as unknown in the indictment, has himself made an attempt to brib * some* body, or has instigated some other rogue to make the attempt. The impossibility of making this kind of additional proof in the grand jury room or before a traverse jury had been very car dully weigh’d and considered in the close and high counsels of the party before the second charge was given but, as if fearing that the grand jury might adhere to sound principles, although he himself had betrayed and abandoned them, Judge Woods went fuither, and gave notice in substance, ik not in te 'mb, that if an indictment under his first charge should be returned he wou d • How no conviction on a trial of the same. As a warning on this point hejsaid: “If tiie vie * be adopted that advice not acted upon may constitute a crime, then the exact words used in giving the advice, whether oral or written, must be ascertained, and every possible intendment in favoi of innocence must be allow* ed and. all doubts resolved m favor ofr the accused. If the use oi ipioney I e advised, but the particular manner or purpose of its use be not clearly, and, indeed, conclusively indicated, a possible innocent use will be presumed; and even if the purpose to bribe be unquestionable, . and yet it appears that t‘..e design was to purchase votes for other officers than a Representative in Congress, it would, be no crime under the statute which is designed to protect the election [ for that officer alone.”

Here it is announced that if a vote was purchased for the electors in tne interest of •Harrison and Morton “it would be n) crime under the statute,” although the name of the Republican candidate for Representative in Congress was on the same ticket, and the corrupt vote was received and counted for him. Sir, I will not dwill at lengthen the vague and obscure reasoning of >u ge Woods in his second charge, to the effect that a person in counseling or advising another to attempt the t ribery of voters simply becomes an accessory before the fact to a crime in which the guilt of the principal must be proven before such accessory ran be punished. He has been answered, punctured, and riddled on that point until neither he nor his position any longer invite intelligent controversy. Joseph V., McDonald,well known to this body and to the country as oneot the ablest and soundest lawyers of the American bar, in dis* cussing the two charges of Judge Woods, said: “I desire to say further, however, that since hese charges have been published I have given the subject a much more careful ex amination than 1 did before, and the result of that examination has been to deepen nay conviction that they can not be reconciled, and that the law as laid down in the second charge is erroneous. It seems to n e clear that the last clause of section 5511, in plain and unmistakaole language, “makes any one guilty who counsels bribery,” “and while it is not a crime to attempt bribery, it is a crime to advist another to make the attempt. ’ That is, one who coun* els or advises any yet.r, person, or officer to bribe any voter at any election for Representatives or Delegates to Congress, or advises the attempt to be made, is guilty under that clause, although the per son advised End counseled neither ■ r.b«M any such voter nor attempts to do so. The advice or counsel to commit the crime of bribery is a substantive offense under the staU ute, and this is what understand Judge Woods, in substance, to say in his first charge, while in his second charge he says in express terms that this is not so, but (to use his own language) “in an case, besides the mere fact of advice or counsel, it must be shown that the crime contemplated was co n* mitted, or an attempt made to commit it,” thus putting it into the category of accessory crimes or crimes in the nature of accessories, in which, of course, there must always be a principal before there can ba accessories. The fact that Dudley committed a substantive offense against the laws when he advised his correspondents to attempt the bribery of voters stands out as -he great central feature of this who’e question, and can never be escaped as long ’is section 5511 endures. The attempt of Judge Woods and his counselors to dwarf Dudley into an accomplice and an abettor, and to e alt the miserable pigmies who are his ools in Indiana into principals, only excites d irision and contempt amongst intelligent and honest people. This issue can be left where J udge Woods has placed it, with the certainty of a conspicously shameful place in the Ltstory of the judiciary of the United States.

And now, in view of the indignity, the injustice, and the open outrage inflicted upon the people of Indiana in the name and by the authority of the qational committee of the Republican party, aided and abetted in the protection of Dudley by the action of the Federal court, it will not, 1 hope, seem strange that as one of Hie representatives of that abused and insulted people I should desire to know by whose instructions and by what authority of law the responsible law officer of the Govei nment in Indiana, selected ard appointed by the present Administratjb. felt himself warranted a few weeL ago m ordering a United States commissioner not to issue a warr ,nt for Dudley’s arrest, when he had ventured to return to In i,,m apolis for the first time in m >re than a year, at the same tig characterizing Dudley’s In twith all it« wojld-wi le ipfam ~ as auhormrableandpatnotw;. .i ..

documftn*, “indicating simply a patriotic interest in the elections.” (To be continued.)