Rensselaer Republican, Volume 20, Number 20, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 January 1888 — THOSE TALLY SHEETS. [ARTICLE]

THOSE TALLY SHEETS.

Second Trial of tbe Alleged Forger* at Indianapolis. A Jar; Impaneled nod the Trial Began— The Defendant* all Enter a Plea of Nut Qnllt;. The second trial of the Marion county tally sheet cases was begun at Indianapolis on the Kl.ii before U. S. District Judge Wood The Government is represented by District Attorney Sellers and Judge E. F. Claypool, and the defendants by Judge G. F. MpNutt, John W. Kern, A. G. Smith and John H. Boskirk, of Bloomington, and H. N. Spann, who appears in his own behalf. Mr. Spann was granted a separate trial, and consequently the only defendants at this trial are Sim Coy, W. F. A. Bernhamer and Stephen Matler. The securing of a jury gave trouble. It is composed of the following: James B. Oiirtis, farmer, Jennings county. Wm. H. BcDger, farmer, North Landing. Ohio county* Robert Dunlap, farmer, Madison, Jefferson sonntv.- ■- ■;X»James T*ter--, farmer, Don Juan, Perry county. Jacob Carbfner, lumberman, Bremen, Marshall eounty. Albert Messick, farmer, Messlck, Henry eounty Frederick Berkey, farmer, Salem, Washington county. Simon Dickinson, engineer, Waterloo, DeK&lb eounty. John S. Sehroeder, farmer, Rising Sun, Ohio county. John L. Davis, farmer, @rawfordsville, Montgomery county. Jessie Brurabach, farmer Counna, DeKaib eounty. Robert Denton, farmer, Hymen, Sullivan county. It is understood that the. political complexion of the j urv is seven Republicans and five Democrats. Mr. Sellers made the opening statement for the Government and Mr. McNutt for the defendants. Mr. Sellers said, after reading the indictments and several statutes being in the case, that by these laws it is made the duty of the inspector* of elections to retain the custody and returns of the election, and it is an offense not oqly against the Stati, but also against the United States, for them to fail, neglect or omit to perform this duty. It is likewise made an offense for any two or more persons to conspire, to influence or induce such election officers to fail, neglect or omit to perform the duty thus imposed, and it is of this latter offense that these defendants are accused. “If any act or acts is done by any* of these conspirators to ward accomplishing thß purpose of tho conspiracy, then all are guilty.” There was no doubt, Mr. Sellers added, of the law in the case, all the legal propositions were well established, and he would be able to show, equally well, that there was even less doubt that a crime had been committed, and that there had been a conspiracy, which resulted in that crime. He proceeded to give a careful review of the events pertaining to the meeting of the canvassing hoard in November, 1886. He said that at that election there were various inspectors, whose duty it was to retain the custody of the tally-sheets of their respective precincts. Among these were Inspectors Hisey, of the Thirteenth ward; CouDselman, of the Fourteenth; Mattlee, sos the Thirteenth; Schmidt, of the Twenty-third, Becker, of the Eleveutfc; Edwards, of the Eighteenth; Baker,.of Union township, and others. When Mr. Becker was on his way to the Court House, to deposit the sealed bags with the Clerk, he was intercepted by a man, sent out by Mr. Coy, who attempted to induce him to surrender the papers to him instead of to the lawful custodian. On the next day the Board of Canvas sersmet, nearly all of them political., friends of Mr. Coy, and he was very active therein trying to get Mr. Bernhamer elected chairman. He succeeded. As some of the inspectors did not have their papers, Inspector Landers, at the instigation of Mr. Perkins, offered a motion that, where the papers were absent, the sealed bags be brought from the Clerk’s office and opened, and that the vote might be counted in this way. One of the defendants then came to Perkins and said: “What arc you doing that for? If the bags are seat for, how are we to use' the changed tally sheets?” Afterward a. resolution, drawn up by Mr. Spaan, was adopted,' deciding not to resort to the bags further to corroborate the returns. One of the inspectors took sick, and his papers, which were afterward f jund to be changed; were left in the possession of Mr. Coy. About noon, Mr. Ssllera said the evidence would Bhow, Mr. Coy came to Perkins and said: “Our candidate for Criminal Judge is behind. Coaid you get Hisey’s papers and help us out?” “It was right here,” said Mr. Sellers, “that the conspiracy filst mad e its appearance.” Continuing, he said that Perkins went to Hisey, got his papers, took them to room 59 of the Court House with Mr. Coy, and there changed the vote, making the erasures with a knife which he borrowed from Coy, and working under the latter’s directions, While they were there Mattler came in and Perkins took his papers and changed them as he had the others. When Hisey’s papers were presented tolheßoarff of Canvassers the ink was not yet dry where the changes had been made. Everybody knew at once what had been done, and that the returns had been tampered with, bnt in spite of this fact, Ch firman Bernhamer refused to take any Btfeps to correct the retufns hrto find out who had committed the crime.

There was an exciting anil excited debate and Mattler got scared, and either changed his returns back or had them changed. Afterward Ljrenz Schmidt, another inspector, left his papers either with John E. Sullivan or George Budd, and when he got them again, the changes had been made. Schmidt, insisted that Jiey were wrong, and that the bag should be sent for, but Bernhammer refused to ailow it. Afterward the papers from Inspector Counselman’s precinct were changed but by whom or where the changes were made the Government would not be able to show. “The result of thjg conspiracy,” concluded Mr. Sellers, was that one mao was declared elected Criminal Judge and another Coroner who were not elected in fact, as was afterward clearly proven by a count of the votes. A crime had been committed—au infamous crime for an infamous purpose; a crime that undertook to undermine the very foundations of the Government. It was not only a crime against the State, bnt a crime against the Government as well. I have simply undertaken to give you a brief o utline of the history of this great conspiracy, and I leave it to you to determine, after you have considered the evidence, whether or not these defendants here are guilty men. It seems to me that after you have heard the evidence that there can be no doubt left in the mind of any jurors; that in returning indictments against these men, the Government has made no mistake.” ? -;f Before the opening statement for the defense was made, Mr. Buskirk. in behalf of defendants, Matter and Bumhamer, entered a plea in bar of further proEeeution.ontiregronndßofformer jeopardy, and that they were not present and did not agree to the discharge of the Mother jury. He asked that the Court might designate a time at whMi this question might be considered, and Judge Woods said he would do so. Judge McNutt spoke an hour and a half, in the opening statement to the jury, in behalf of the defendants. He said there were only two questions for them to consider, and they were whether or not a crime had been committed, and if it had, who committed it. No such crime as mutilating these tally-sheets, he said, was charged against these defendants. They were not even accused, as one would infer from the statements of the Government, with conspiracy to change the tally-sheets, and the only thing that was charged against them was a conspiracy to induce certain inspectors to neglect or omit to perform their duty, in retaining possession of the tally-sheets. He wished these distinctions to be clearly made in the mind* of the jurors. The Government placed all their hopes of certviotioU' - upon’ the * evidence of one Samuel E. PerkiUs. -Thftt-manr-PerkinyMffi‘’m'a:de~Rtr*Spee^ ment with Captain Ritter, who had been Deputy State Prosecutor for these cases, and if he were given immunity from punishment he would give such testimony as would convict Mr. Coy, and Mr. Coy alone. Perkins admitted that he had changed the tallysheets. The State of Indiana had a positive case against him, and yet it let him off, hira the principal, so that an alleged accomplice, Mr. Coy, chairman of the Democratic Committee, might be convicted. In addition to this,. Perkins had tried to induce old man Hisey to comrhit perjury,but had failed. Here was a bright tnaa,” said Mr'. McNutt, “who had the advantages of education and example, and who was the most fitting man to make an ex~amplg“sf, bufTthe State ol TadmnaTet him go. After Perkins had made this sworn statement to Ritter and to the county grand jury, iinDlicating only Coy, besides himself, h-i had come before the Federal grand jury and in the Federal Court, and had changed his statement so as to implicate eight or ten others. He had either sworn to a lie at one time or the other, and probably both. The Prosecutor” said the speaker, “did not have the manliness and courage to tell you that he expected to make out his case by the evidence of a man with such a record as this. You are asked to condemn these ipen to prison and to stripes, on the evidence of a man who is a self-confessed forger.” Mr. McNutt briefly discussed possible motives that might actuate men to commit such a crime as this, and endeavored to show that Perkins was more interested than was any of the defendants in getting a Democrat, whom he qxpected to manipulate in’ his own interests, in the matter of a bond on which he was a surety for a large amount, elected Judge of the Criminal Cqurt. He closed with the statement that every one of the defendants could show a better character than Perkins. • ,-V %-. •