Rensselaer Republican, Volume 19, Number 48, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 August 1887 — THEY COULD NOT AGREE. [ARTICLE]

THEY COULD NOT AGREE.

The Election Conspiracy Cases at Indianapolis : —. The Jury Wretile With Each Other tor Twenty-four Hour* and Are Then Die-eharfrd-How the Ballots Stood and Other luteresting Particulars. The jurorsin the conspiracies reported to Judge Woods Saturday evening that they could not agree and were discharged. They at once drew their pay and left for their several homes. The jury, it will be remembered was composed of the following: Charle* W. Anderson, foreman, Royal Center, Catw county, Democrat-Greenbacker. ’ J John R. May, Independence,Warren, Democrat. John T. Hunt, Dana, Vermillion, Democrat. Charles W. Vande ender, Newport, Vermillion, Democrat. David B. Dinsmore, Hillsdale, ' Vermilliop, - Democrat. , , ■ I Wm. H. Fulwider, Columbus, Bartholomew, Democrat. William Stone, Logan, D arborn, Democrat. Willard S. Bowen, LaPorte, Democrat. Ezra Wood, Madison. Jefferson, Republican. Samuel Nicholson, Hymen', Sullivan, Republican. George W. King. Bartholomew, Republican. James H. Fear, Tipton. Republican. There was a considerable curiosity among those who had been watching the trial to know how the jury stood in its ballotings on the different defendants. One of the jurors said: “In most of the cases it was what I suppose will be called a strict party vote, the Democrats voting for acquittal and the Republicans for conviction. The vote on Beck was at one time eleven for acquittal while in the case of Bernhamer the vote stood six for conviction to six for acquittal. There was no heated or exciting arguments among the jurors but from the first after retiring it was plainly to be seen that no agreement could be had. The foreman, Mr. Anderson, was strong for conviction.” Another of the jurors said, “We took our first ballot immediately after supper on Friday evening. It seems from first to last that we must have voted a thousand times, but that is, of course, an overestimate. We voted on each defendant seperately every time. The vote for Coy’s conviction was five against seven for acquit al.” The same juror said the persons from Vermillion county “were strog for acquittal. The juror of Laporte county was very active and kept any who might appear to waver into line.” A juror estimated the average ballots taken to be about as follows: Bernhamer—Six for acquittal; six for conviction. „—.■■ ■■■ -- • ■ -- " - Coy—Seven for acquittal- fl re for conviction. RuHivan —Eightfor acquirtSlT Tour for conviction. Mattler-Seveu for acquittal; five for conviction. Metcalf—Nine for.acquit tai; three for conviction. Beck—Ten for acquittal; two for conviction. Budd—Eight for acquittal; four for conviction. Mr. Spaan -stood about with Coy, though at times there were fluctuations in his rating as a conspirator. There were also occasional variations in the vote on Budd. Judge Claypool, who assisted IT. S. Attorney Sellers in the prosecution, was asked how he regarded the action of the jury. He said:

“It was a matter of surprise,” ftplied that gentleman adding, after a pause, “and not much either after the first round. In my judgment the evidence is so strong that if the spirit of politics had not entered into the minds of the jurors they could not have hesitated five minutes in rendering a verdict against all the defendants, excepting Reardon. Since the case has been tried we have information of very important evidence which must render a conviction of some of the defendants, as it seems to me, almost certain. In my opinion,the prosecution should be pressed, with renewed vigor from this time onward, and the people ought not to surrender until it is certainlp determined that it is impossible to punish such crimes committed in our midst. I have heard the suggestion that this prosecution was intended for political effect. Ido not see how it is possible for any honest man to entertain such an opinion,because I have a conviction that the defendants have had the sympathy of a good many prominent Republicans, whose names I do not wish to mention.” The defendants in the case regard the result with more satisfaction than if a verdict of guilty had been rendered, but appear to recognize the fact that the contest is not over. The committee of one hundred express a determination to prosecute the cases tea final termination. Public sentiment is more or less devided. The fact of the changing of the tally sheets is admitted as beyond doubt, but many Democrats claim Perkins alone was guilty of this offense against the laws. It is not known when a second hearing will be had.