Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-10-19
United states District Court-Dtstricr
OF Indiana.

United states District Court-Dtstrict
OF Indiana.
The United States VS.. Joseph Ellis-Indictment
for conspiracy.
CHARGE OF JUDGE SMITH TO THE JURY.
GESTLEMES:-You have given a patient hear
ing to the protracted examination of the evidence
and the argument of counsel in this case, and you
are now required to discharge the more import
ant duty of determining whether the evidence
which has been presented to you is sufficient 10
establish in your minds a conviction beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of
the offense Tor which he is indicted.
In fe<ming your conclusions you should be
controlled by the expositions of the law which
shall be given to you by the court. II is the
duty of the court to expound the law and il is
the duty of the jury to find the facts in conform
ity with the law as explained by the court.
The defendant is charged with confederating
and conspiring with divers other persons to resist
by force the execution Of a law of the United
States which provides for the enrolment of the
national forces subject to perform military duty
The specific mode of resistance which it is al
legged the conspiratOrs agreed to adopt. was to
compel the enrolling Commissioner by force and
menaces to surrender to them the list of names
which he had made, and it is alleged that the Oh
ject of the conspiracy was accomplished in the
manner above specified.
The evidence very clearly proved that on Sun
day night the 18th OF June last, near the hour OF
midnight, a number of persons variously estema-
ted at from fifty TO one hundred, approached the
house OF James Sill. the enrolling COMMISSIONS
of Marion township in Putnam county in
this State, in IA violent and tumultuous
manner, many of them armed with guns and
pistols, and demanded of Sill his books and pa
pers pertaining to his official duties The demand
was accompanied with threats against the proper
ty and lie of Sill il he should refuse to comply
Sill, influenced by his feirs and experimenting vic
lence if he should refuse. yielded so far as to sur
render a portion of the papers demanded. The
rioters surprising that their object was accom-
plished took the papers and departed. firing guns
and making other violent demonstrations as they
left. IL is also proved that the rioters as they
approached the house OF Sill. met a Young man
who had left the house a few minutes before, who
seeing the crowd advancing, attempted to return
to the house, and refusing 10 stop when called
upon to Go SO. he was fired upon from the crowd
and was seriously wounded. The trans
action thus proved, from the number OF
persons engaged in 1.-THE collection OF
deadly arms, the deliberate and
determined manner in which the unlawful object
of their assemblage was accomplished, and the
recklessness Of life which was manifested, pre-
sents Il violation Of the law OF a startling charac-
ter, and occurring as it did in the midst of a
quiet community. remote from all those scenes OF
war. which during the past two wears have DESC
lated a large portion of the country, was well
calculated To produce excitement and alarm, and
fully ~justifes every effort which can be made to
identify and subject to punishment those who
participated in il.
But the indignation which every law abiding
citizen must necessarily feel at the commission
| n & -, "a fon-o Of cnch unarEad atrOrffu 1ln.,ll not
be allowed to influence the judgment of Jurors in
considering the question. whether the defendant
is guilty of a participation in the crime.
IL was a rule of the civil law, by which the
courts in many European countries are Con-
trolled. that a person charged with a crime of
great magnitude might he convicted upon slighter
evidence than would be required for a conviction
of an offense OF a lesser grade.
This rule is founded upon principles which
conflict with sound policy and the p~lainest prin-
ciples of humanity. IL has never been acknowl-
edged as a principle of the common law, and is
not recognized by the courts of England or of the
United States.
On the contrary the rule is well settled in this
country that a higher degree of evidence shall be
required to Justify the conviction of a person
charged with "A crime OF great magnitude, than
will authorize the conviction of one charged with
a minor ~offense. If a defendant is put upon trial
upon an indictment for an ~offense, the conviction
of which would forfeit his life or his liberty, the
convictions of the jury of his guilt should be more
clear and certain than would be required in a
case in which the penalty would be merely a
nominal fine.
1t is important to bear in mind the distinction
between the conspiracy alleged in the indictment
and the acts by which it was carried into effect.
The defendant in this case is not indicted for
the acts of violence which were perpetrated al
Sill's house. The offense with which he is
charged consists in an agreement either expressed
or implied between himself and Others to commit
those acts. IT the evidence proves that he en-
tered into an agreement with one or more persons
to resist by force the execution of the law. he
would be guilty of the offense charged although
the forcible resistance to the execution of the
law had not been made. The crime of c~onspira-
CIV is complete whenever the unlawful c0mbina-
ton or agreement is made, whether such agree
ment or conspiracy is carried into effect or not.
In this case, if you are satisfied from the evi
dence that the defendant entered into an agree
ment with Others to perpetrate the outrage which
was committed ut Sill's house, you should find
him guilty. although the evidence may not be
sufficient to satisfy YOU that he was present, aid
ing and assisting IN its commission. But before
you can convict the defendant on that ground
YOU should have clear evidence sufficient to sat.
isfy you that snch agreement or conspiracy was
entered into by him Although the defend
ant can not be convicted under this indictment
for the unlawful assemblage and the Illegal acts
of violence which were perpetrated at Sills
house. for the reason that those acts constituted
offense of a different character, to wit: That Of
obstructing an officer OF the United States in thu
execution of a duty in relation to the conscrip
ton law, as it is usually termed; still a partici
patton in those acts would fully justify the infer
ence that he vas acting under a mutual agree
ment TO commit them When a number of per
sons assemble together to commit an unlawful
act, and they act in concert in such n manner al
to create the belief that they are animated by a
common purpose TO effect a common object, the
agreement TO commit such act would be very
properly implied. and the evidence of a ~conspira
CIV to effect such common object would be sufh
cient To warrant a conviction.
In this view of the case. the question whether
the defendant was present at the time the outrage
was perpetraied at Sill's house. and whether he
was aiding and assisting to consumate the object
of the assemblage. becomes a very important
one.
You should then carefully examine the evil
dence bearing upon this point, ms upon your de
termination of this question the decision of the
whole case may depend. Ii must be regarded as
somewhat extraordinary that so large a number
of persons should assemble in a neiehborhOOd
remote from any large town, and containing only
a rural population, and commit acts OF violence
which have startled the country and yet so little
information has been obtained as to the identity
of the persons who were present
The only direct evidence beariug upon the
question of the defendants presence is that OF
Sill and FRY, who both thought thew recognized
the defendant by his voice. In determining TO
what extent YOU should rely upon the opinions
expressed by them as co the identity OF the de
PENDANT. you should carefully consider the at
tending circumstances; the time of night; the