The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1870-12-15


ronrf Yesterday. which excited consider
sble interest as being the first case in the
United States Court under the act OF
Congress of May 1870, to enforce the loth
amendment Two men, father and son,
named Lewis and Henry Canter, OF Law
renee county, Ohio, were indicted by the
United States Grand Jury for preventing
two scolored men, named Stewart ana
Wilkinson, from voting at the late cleo
ton. The case came on for hearing be
fore Judge Leavitt, yesterday As the
defendants were penniless the Court as
aipned Cassius X. Brennaman ESQ., to
defend them. Col Bond appeared for
the United States.
The testimony showed that when the
two colored men approached the polls on
the occasion in question, one OF the de
PENDANTS, Lewis Canter, used very violent
language toward them, threatening them
with violence if they attempted to vote,
and adding that he would cut the heart
out of any man who undertook TO pro
tect them The colored men thereupon
desisted from the attempt to vote.
Judge Leavitt in his charge totheJury,
briefly recapitulated the testimony Sand
then said:
"If then, the jury believe that such
threats were made, and that they had such
an operation on the minds of these col
cred men that they really apprehended
violent opposition to their exercise OF the
right of voting, and that they were actu-
ally intimidated by the use OF that Ian
auage, then the case contemplated by the
statute, seems to have been made out.
1t is, however for the jury to pass upon
the evidence that has been adduced, and
10 say whether the testimony sustains the
allegation of the indictment.
ut has been very well observed by the
counsel for the government that III pas
sing upon this case-the first case that
has ever been presented in this Court un-
der the act of May, 1870, and the first
that have heard of originating under
der that law it will be for you, irrespec-
tive of what may be your private opinion
in regard to the policy of the 18th Amend
ment or the aot of Congress OF last May.
to say whether the facts were proved
bring these defendants within the opera
ton of that law. have no doubt that
YOU have an intelligent apprehension oi
what is the duty of a Court or q jury
when called upon to act judicially in the
execution of a law of the land. There
are many Legislative provisions the poll
CIV Of which we may well doubt, or even
condemn, or even be utterly opposed to.
And vet when law has been passed un'
der the Constitution, and is q law OF the
land, its obligations rest upon every citl'
zen of the country. All who claim pro
lection under the constitution and laws
of the land are bound to recognize as val
id all laws legally and constitutionally
passed. The only remedy if the law i
wrong, if the public sentiment does no
approve of it, is to apply to the same pow
er that enacted the law For under any
other theory ofaction there could be moth
ing but anarchy and confusion whicl
would result inevitably in the de
struction and overthrow OF the govern
ment itself.
. ut is admitted on the part of the coun
sci for the government that there Is NJ
testimony in the case to implicate thi
boy who is Jointly charged with his faith
or in this Indictment. As q matter o
course, the verdict of the jury, as to him
Henry Cantcr, will be a verdict OF no
guilty.
"The Court has been requested by tn
counsel for the prisoner to charge The ~
ry shall find that in these terms; II TIL
Jury shall find that Stewart and Wilkm
son the two colorcd men, were not actu
ally intimidated and put in danger O
personal violence in their attempt to eE
ercise their right of suffrage, and tina
there still existed an opportunity Tor then
10 vote, Notwithstanding the conduc
charged against the defendants, the
must find the defendants not guilty. Th
point which the Court is requested I
charge them is this that in order to brin
party within the operation OF the se'
ton OF the law relied upon, the pcrso
prevented from voting must have been
danger Of actual personal violence an
that if he had an opportunity ut any TIM
during the continuance OF the election |
vote II can not be charged that he wa
intimidated from voting
IL cannot recognize the correctness
this view of the law. II he was thrcatcl
ed, If language was used toward him thi
induced the apprehension that thei
might be difficulty or violence II he n
tempted the exercise OF his right, ! thin
it is within the operation Of the law
may be said that these colorcd peop
evinced very pcuceNble and submissil
disposition and temper 1t was possib
for them to have urged pcrsistently, an
even with violence, the right to vot
They did not think proper to do so.
think their course was n wise one. lttho
had reason to apprehcnd riot, or a +
IA sort to violence if they attempted to Q.
ercise their right it was very iudieio'
and proper for them to retire
"The question romans, whether roI
what did pass within their hearing an
their knowledge, Canter SO far intlinid
ted them as TO prevent them rom exc
cising the right of voting, II he did,
was within the spirit and design of Il
law. For that was that there should
no hinderence in any form or in any way
no intimidation, no threats, no etior
made TO threaten or prevent any citizC
in the exercise Of the great privilege
the right Of suffrage, The jury will tai
the case. and without passion or bias,
prejudice of any kind pass upon 1t
in their best judgement they think Il
ease deserves
Al the close Of the charge, Mr. Brcnn
man, counsel for the defendants, requc'
ed the Court 10 note exception to th
part of the charge in which the Court
fused to charge the jury as requested
him.
Judge Leavitt pleasantly remork'
that he should be very happy TO graz
the exception, but os no writ OF err
would lie from this Court to the Supren
Court in criminal cases, the exceptiC