The Newberry herald. [volume] (Newberry, S.C.) 1865-1884, 1871-12-13
Uni.ad States Ccrrt--Trials.

whic!, the unlawful act waS pei c'pct'atrd
should be set forth, and the names of the
injured parties, &c. lie read as his All.
thoritics from Whartou'> American Law,
vol 3rd, page 229o, and payc 23i9; the
case Of Lambert VS.. the People,, 9 Cowan,
SIS, and other Authorities.
Mr.. Chamberlain, for the prosecution,
replied and took up each ground of eX-
ccption in It's order. lie was followed at
some length by Mr.. CorhIn in support Of
the indictment. WHO explained a"d eN-
rounded the views advarccd by his col
league. At the corciuSlnn Of his remarks
the corr, aijourned till 10 o'clock Wed.
ne<dav.
Wednesday morning Mr.. Co'hin asked
leave to make some supplementary re-
marks and introduce some additional an.
thoriticS. lie called the attention of the
court to the objection made hy the de-
rence that no election had been named
in the indictment at which Rainey had
been hindcrcd in the free exercise Of the
right of voting. lie read the opinion OF
Chief Justice Marshall in the case Of Nc
Culloch VS.. the State of Maryland, slow
ing the power Of Congress to enf"rre.
by appropriate lcgi>laii"n, the powers
granted by the Conslitu'i ion to the gene
raj Government.
Mr.. Johnson followed in the closing
argument for the defence. His speech,
as reported in the Phoenix, will be pub
liShcd on our outside next week.
On the motion to Nuash the Indictment
against Allen Crosby and others, for con.
spiracy against AMI Rainey and others,
and for burglary, the Conrt held the
first and eleventh counts in the indlct-
mcnt to he gnnd, and ovcrr'lled the mo,
'ion to quaSh as to them, but >u>taine"
it as TO the second, fourth, sixth, eighth,
ninth and tenth. On the third, fifth and
seventh the Court were divided in opin
ion. The first count alleges the fact OF
the conspiracy, to 60 int" operation at an
election on the third Wednesday in Oc-
,ohcr, 1872. Tie allegation held to hc
good. the second count is bad because
it does not allrge that Rainey is qualified
to vote, and because it alleges that the
right 10 vote was privilege granted by
the Constitutions of the United States,
when the iisht to vote depends npnH
the la,y of the State and is not granted
by the Constitution Of the United States,
nor guaranteed by that Instrument.
The third count contains charge Of
and on the question OF lnrl>'!'c.
lion IN such cases the Court arc divided
in opinion. The fnnrth count is obn"N-
ions to the objection that neither the
citizenship Of Raincy r"r his Qrali'ica-
ton to vote is set out. Tie fifth, Ike
the third, contains the charge Of burglary
and the Court eivc no opinion.
The sixth count is had in that it CON
talnS no allegation of the fact Of qna!i!i.
cation, nor that the party Was entitled
to vote in York County or anywhere
else, or that he ever exercised his right
to vote. The seventh, like The third,
contains the charge CT burglary. Tic
eighth coun, is held to be bad because
it alleges conspiracy to hinder Rainey
from exercising right secured to him
hv ";he Constitution of the United
States, which is defined to be The right
to he secure in his person and ra:crS
from unreasonable )" whcn in fact Snrt'
right existed bv the COMMON law long
prior to ,hc existence of the Constitution
Of the United States. The ninth aad
tenth counts are bad from Indebtedness.
rs the defendants corid not POSSIBLY
know, from the ianguage used, with
wha. utirnce they were charged. HE
eleventh unit charges conspiracy To
irjure Raincy, because he had previous
ly voted for member Of Congress. Held
10 he good on the ground tina: the Court
had 10 douht Of the power OF Congress
to pass laws for tic protection Of voters
a, Federal elections.
Therefore the motion TO qua>h vas
ovcrrule,l as to the first AID eleventh
and sustained as to the others
excepting those respecting which the
court Is ui'l !cI Ill o!lI!II'H.
Mr.. S;anherry submitted certificate
Of the division Of tic court Oh the points
NAMED in The decision, ami requested thc
si-: azure Of the court, in order that II
might be seat upat once to the supreme
Court. M7. C"rtiH objected, and stated
that the Ggyer"ucnt would enter Eo!c
proScQue as 10 the ccn"tS upon the
validity Of whic!: the court was divided.
After considerable discussion, it was
agreed that Il similar certificate OF dlrl-
sion should be sent up in case to be
called to morrow, ard to proceed at once
to the trial Of the case in hand.
Mr.. Curoin stated, that as the defence
expressed their intention to sever IN thel:
Of the jurors, he would sever
in the trial, and would first try shcTod
Cil;icrS. The prisoner was arra'Gned,
aud plead not guilty. The clerk then
proceeded to cmpanncl the jury. Inc
name first called was Andrew y. Curtis,
20 " HON thu prisoner objected.
Mr.. Cort;n denied The right percmp-
tory challenge to parties III the United
States Court charged with oi.rHces less
than capita! felony, citing as authorities
the case Of the United States rs. john
81 BIackford, ,t7g; United States
IS RciI, l2,h Howard, 365 United
States rs. Shepherd, Abhntt'S Reports,
I>t vol, page 435. The defence replied
that al the decisions referred to were