Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-10-10
Init-d states Istrict Court-Di>trtet
% Indiana.
The United States ". Joseph Ellis-In ietment
TO- conspiracy.
cHAReE oF IunaE sNIIH Do THE IN

GnSTLEHIx.-You have given a patieIt near 4
ing u tie tfoiractol examination OF the syiIence
aud the Argument OF COUNSEL IN this case sud YOU |
sre INV required 20 discharge the more import
ant duty OF determining whether the evidence
which has been pre- esiied 10 you j. sufficient 10
e-t.bi,sh in your mind. a conviction bes ond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant Is guilty OF
the ofeuse tor which ne isiBdicted
In forming your cocclu>Ons YOU should be
controlled nv the expositoss of theliw which
shall be given TO you BY the court. IL IL the
duty of the court 20 expOund the law and u -
the duty Of the jury to hnt the facts in conform
i,v with the Law as explained by the court.
The defendant - charged with confejerating
and conspiring with divers other persoR- re-'st
bv force the execution of a law OF the United
States which provides for the enrollmenI OF The
national forces subject To perform military duty
The specific mode of resistance which 10 T. al
legged the eonspiratOrs agreed To adopt. Was To
compel the enrolling Commissioners 10y force and
menaces TO surrender TO them the list OF names
which lie had made. aud IL i alleged that the Oh
iect Of the conspiracy was accomplished IN the
manner above specified.
The evidence very clearly proved that on Sun
day night the I4th OF June last. TIE hour Of
midnight, number OF persons vaIiously estema-
tel at from fifty 10 one hundred, approached the
hou.e OF James Sill. the enrolling Commissioner
OF Marion township in Putnam county IN
this State in violent and tumultuous
manner, many Of them armed with guns aud
pistols, and demanded of Sill his books and pa
pers pertaining to his official duties The demand
was accompanied with threats against the proper
" and lite Of sill if he should refuse To comply
Sill, Influenced nv his tears aud experimenting vo
ence if he should refuse. yielded 20 far "a 10 sur
render portion of the papers demanded. The
rioters supp sing that their object WAS accom-
p-hed took the papers and departed. firing guns
and making other violent demonstrations a they
left. IL is also proved that the rioters as they
approached the house OF , ". met Young mai
who had left the house few minutes before. who
seeing the crowd advancing, attempted TO return
TO the house, and refusing To stop when called
upon to do 80. he was fired upon from the crowd
and WIS seriously wounded The trans
action thus proved. from the number OF
persons engaged in 1.-THE collection oil
deadly arms, the deliberate anc
determined mlnner in which the unlawful object
of their assemblage accomplished, and the
reckessness Of life which was manifested, pre-
sents a violation of the law OF startling char &C
ter, and occurring "a it did in the midst OF
quiet community remote from all those scenes o
war. which during the past two years have DESC
lated large portion Of the country. was wei
calculated 10 produce excitement and alarm, ant
fully justifes every effort which can be made Il
identity and subject to punishment those wh'
participated in il.
But the indignation which every law abiding
citizen must necessarily feel at the cOmml'sol
of an offenSe Of such marked atrOcty. should no
be allowed to influence the judgment of jurors il
considering the question. whether the deienlan
is guilty OF participation in the crime
Ii was a rule OF the civil law. by which tn
courts in many European countries are con
trolled, that person charged with crime o
great magnitude might be convicted upon slight
evidence than wOuld he required Tor cOnvlcuo
of an offense OF lie ser grade.
This rule is founaed upon principles whic
conflict with sound policy and the plainest priI
cipIes of humanity II has never been ackuowl
edged as a principle of the common law, and
not recognized by the courts of England or OF oh
/ United States
| On the contrary the rule is well settled in tn
country that higher degree of evidence shall
required to Justify the conviction OF perso
! charged with crime OF great magnitude. thu
/ will authorize the conviction of one charged ait
i minor offense IL adeiendsnt Is put upon ir
upon an indictment for an ohense. the cOnvictiO
of which would forfeit his lite or his liberty. Il
convictions Of the jury of his guilt should be mo-
clear and certain than would be required IN
case in which the penalty would be merely
nominal fine.
IL is important To bear in mind The dstinctic
betw cen the conspiracy alleged in the indictme
and the acts by which It was carried INTO effect
The defendant in this case Is not indicted {
the acts Of violence which were perpetrated
SlPs house The offense with which he
charged consists in an agreement either express
or Implied between himself and Others To comm
those acts. IL the evidence proves that he 81
. tered into an agreement with one or more perso
to resist 10y force the execution ct the law.
would be guilty of the Offense charged althou.
: the fOrcbe resistance to the execution OF q
4 l. L.. g
cv 8 complete whenever the unlawful combin
ton or agreement is made, whether such agre
m.rt r conspiracy IS carried into effect or not.
IN this case If YOU sat she | from the e'
dence at the defendant entered into an agre
u ent W Oh Others To nerpetrate the outrage VII
was committed at Sili's louse, you shcu d
him eunt, although the evidence may not
D sufficient TO satisfy YOU that he WAS present. 81
{ ing al d assisting IN It's commission But befo
: YOU can convict the defendant on that grou,
vu should have clear evidence sufficient 10 =
sfy you that such agreement or conspiracy "
entere into by him. Although the deisn
r ant can not be convicted under this lndictmt
Il for the unlawful assemblage and the Illegal a,
0 OF violence which perpetrated at Sill
house for the reason that those acts conStltut
& offense of "A different character. To wit: That
obstructng an officer OF the United States in /
|. execution of duty in relation TO the cOnScr
Il ton law. il is usually termed: still part
e patton in those acts would fully justify the inf
o ence that he acting under a mutual ayr
: ment To commit them When a number OF p
Il sons assemble together To commit an unlaw
act aud they act in concert in such manner
o 10 create the belief that they are animated b,
/ common purpose To effect common object.
Il agreement 10 commit such act would be "
u properly Ilird. and the evidence of conspi
q CIV To effect such common object would be 81
u cient To warrant conviction.
/. In this view of the case. the question whet
:, the defendant was present AZ the time the ouir'
was perpetraIed at Sill's house aud whether
was aiding and assisting To cOnsumate the OBJ
; of the assemblage. becomes \ very import
: one
e You should then carefully examine the q
II dence bearing upon this point, as upon your
= term n ,ti of tbs question the decision at
| vi ole case NAV depend IL must be regarded
Is somewhat extraordinary that 80 large mum
> of persons should assemble in neighborh'
~ remote from any large town, and containing o
re a rural population. and commit acts OF VIC e.
D which have startled the country. and yet so IL
:, information has been obtained a 10 the lden
4 of the persons who were present.
The only direct evidence bearing upon.
~ question of the defendants presence Is that
= Sill and FRY, who both thought thev recognI
=, the defendant by his voice. In deter mining
~ what extent YOU should RELY upon the opini
expressed by them 10 the identity OF the
e :, PENDANT. YOU should carefully consider the
~ tending circumstances the time of night:
" degree OF light which existed: the excitem