, 1870-12-01
OPT RATION CT TIE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT IN UaIO.
HenteHce Of a Whilc Mau Tor Iuter.
fefftt0 A&tsn CoRoEc<i k'at11s-Eharxe
Of 1nuRo LeaytIt.


fcsassx aatsn <oRo1cd s'a.srs-charxs
Of JHuRo LeayiIt-
From lie cinesn,at. Cornmeyeiat
In lhe United Statca Circuit Court. Wednea,
cky, befors Judge Ieavi.t ard jury, two
men, named Lewis and Henry Canter. wert
Placed on trial. charged sith Lariuy violated
the provisions Of tho net passed My 81, 1870,
lo enforce the ri ghis Of citizens Of the
the rEiou," by hindesing a1d intimdatiuc
pe1sous euti'led to vute under the Fifteenth
Amendnent- Thu cAeo il iutese4tiug, from
the fact that 1t u the frat alleged
violation OF tho Act which hss
been lntesds.ted in any court Of the United
Stttta- TIE Indictment contained two counte,
scttiIs cut that the offence had been com.
mlttei 1t the 0ctohnr election in Lswsencs,
County, OHIO, the aggriered coIored indiyidu-
als being Jacob Steward and Jupiter Wilken-
sou. Tho testimony Of thr thrca or four VII
lcsres for the government elicitod the fact
tllat the prisoner, Lewis Canter. (fAther OF
IN Lis demonstrations, sinrorming Messra.
Steward and Wilkinson that if they al
uEpled to vets there would b =
revolution that he would dis jsather than
permit it. He also stated that be would cut
The heart ont Of any person who attempted to
tired. and cid not agxin present theraselyes
at the polls. THIS deIenae oHered no teasi-
mopy- Theis attorney claimed that Tho ey;.
dence wAs not sufficient to support tho
charge, md that the identity OF the p,isoner1
had Tot bten established.
It did not appear from tho cvsaenoe that the
younger Canter Ind been IN any xay impli;
catca, and the jury were instructed 10 return
hHerdict OF not guilty ~ to him.
Afttr the arGuuents OF council, the Court
nsuucted the jury Is foltows:
JUDGE IEATrr1 CHARGE
TF%SrS s.xt,e 1Tu
involving principle Of considerable imppy-
tailce aId general interest," Concern1ne tho
lsW, there 1etms to be very Little room for
doult or controversy. 1t i8 very recent en-
sc:1nent OF Congress-, growing ont of the
adoption ~ part OF the Constitution Of the
U-tt. States, Of what is known as the Fit
teenih Amendment to the Constitution. Apd
which is now = part OF the Constitution.
tho geueral tenor and object Of which 10 to
guat1utea 70 AN persons born In the United
stAtes. without refezercs to race, or color, or
cuccatiop, or previous condition. the exar-
.ease Sf tho right Of snffsage. You are Ill
Ell ut,on. tho act Of My, 1870, mon vhieh
this Indictment is framed. vas passsd the
object being to enforce the general provision
Of tie amendment referred to. Among other
mstterr, beyond Ill question, 1t WA fbe Oh
iect OF tho amendment thxt the light
o. eunaEe should 10 extended to
tFy- It WAS ooe Of the nain purposes OF tho
ct OF 1870 TO protect them In the exercise Of
this l,Ett, which. u1der the Constitution. il 4
lArt OF the indisputAble and uudoubted
rashte Of tho colored population Of the United
Tue only possible question that can arise is
whether the facts which are IN proof before
ynu amount to intimidation or threats. Thare
ID no pretense that there wAa any sctusl yio-
lence. II the proof IL sufficient to show that
under the lear Of coEseluenres, they we're in
timidated 30 fAr they did not persist in en-
ivFr.pG tbeir Fight to sDte; II, 10 othnf words,
what p4eeed prevented them from attempting
to exercise tho right Of voting, the case viii
undoubtedly 10 brought within the operation
OF The law. 1t " not necessary that actual yio.
lenca should have been used :; il, ty the nae at
tbreato, or other means amounting to iutimi-
aatinn, they wEre defeated in their purpose OF
voting. suppose the offenss contcm7latetl BY
the statute d clearly made ont.
Hue Court has been requested by th q coun-
sel for the prisoner to harge tho jury that IL
they should lind that the two colored metz
were not actually intimidatcd and put III dAn-
ger OF personal violence, and that there et,ll
e!isfed an Opportunity for them to vote, not
defendant. they must find \ verdict OF not
EHlll5. cannot recognize the correctness Of
this view Of the law. It did not comprehend
that ttse party prevented from vtt,ug shnuld
bc IN sueh actual danger Of personal violeace
~ 70 intimidAte him from the o1orcieo OF his
right II he WAS threatened, il language vas
used TO him that i1duce4i an apprehension
that there might be diHisulty OF violence
i 10 attempted to exercise his rtghk,-
think that would b11pg the case
within The operation OF tho law Nov
il has been said that this colored poopls MI
douttedly esinced a peaeeable and submissive
dl-f oeitlon. 1t Was possible for them to hayo
urged perslstcntly, and evan with violence.
their night to vote: They did not think il
wi.e one. II they had reason to approheud
1telerce it wsa very judicious and Wise aud
| proper for them to retire. lct tho question
| Ic1usina whether what did paRa within their
hearing, within their knowledge, actually to
| far int!tnidsted them aa 10 prevent them from
exercising the right to vote. II it did 80, IL
| waa within the spirit and design OF The Law
for that vas, that there should be no hln
drarce, in any Soru>. in any way; nn intinidA
prtvcbt any citizen in tho exe1clse OF tht
great principles Of the Hght Of suffrage.
Tia Jury then retired, and, after n brie
leltbeEnttoD, returned with the following yer
dict: '.Wc, the jury IN itsue, jointly f3nt
Lewis Canter guilty in mauuer aud form a
charged, and ~ to Henry CauteE, We find hin
not guilty. We respectfully Ask your Homo
70 be mosciful to tho said Lewis Oanter.
The rsisou through his council, intimate,
dcsi1e That sentence bs rasscd Immediately
Tho court said that. as 1t appeared the dc
ftnd1nt WIS poor man, zud not in cirrum
STAGES to respond, the fno Of $500 fixed b
lAw would moi be IMPOSED. Tbs senieoce 9
the court would be that the prisoner be cor
fined in the County Jail OF Lawrence Count
for obe mouth. the shortcat term allowed b
the law.