Tri-weekly phoenix. [volume] ([Columbia, S.C.]) 1865-1875, 1871-12-09
The UNITED STAIRS C1no6ir Counr-

The UNITED STAIRS 'CIRoUrr CoURr-
j TRIAL ! RIAL OF Ky eKjtpx oAsSFs. 5rWspsEspAx,
December THE nou,t, convened at
Ill A.,M.s Honp Hugh l. Bond and. Hon.
George s. Bryan presiding! oil o3aH,'n
Application for bail ia the case Of the
United States Ys. Bishop, HRndiferl and
john Little, for conspiracy rsgainat Dick
|, wilson. was made by I. D. Witherspoon,
Esq rlie application was granted, and
the prisoners gave bail in the sum OF
So. 1000, with Edward Hope, of Colum-
bia, rs surety.
The court delivered the following OPT.
nion on the motion. to quash The indict-
ment in the case OF the United States. us.
Allen Crosby C: al. for conspiracy aSa; nst
Amzi Rainey and for burglary. No.,
After the prolonged and very able ar.
gument OF counsel upon this motion to
quash. we feel embarrassed, gentlemen,
that upon 80 little deIiberation We are to
pass Judgment upon the grave questions
raised here. But the fact that 10 many
persons are now IN confinement upon
these charges, and that 90 many wit
nesses are in attendance upon the court,
at great personal expense, makes it ns-
cessary that we should not delay longer.
Aud the first objection to the first
count III the Indictment is, That the sec.
tion Of the Act Of Mny 81, 1870, which
this court charges the parties with con-
spring to violate, declares no penalty Tor
the offence. 80
The first section OF the Act declares q
right. It is referred to in this count by
its number, and with sufficient certainty,
it seems to us, to enable the parties
charged, after trial, to plead the verdict
rendered in this case in bur TO another
indictment After declaring the right,
the statute proceeds. in Section Z, 10 de.
fine the punishment for its violation. 1t
IS not necessary, it seems to ns, that each
section of the Act should contain ut it's
close the penalty.for its infraction. That
is often, us IN this statute, referred to q
later aud generally to the closing section
OF The Act defining the crime or offence,
and is made applicable to all tue mite
cendenl sections. It is objected, more
over, that this count does not contain
the names Of the pnrties who, being en-
titled to vote, were to DO hindered aud
prevented from the exercise OF the cleo
tive franchise by the trnversers. It must
be remembered That this IL not an in
dictment to punish wrong doue to iu
dividuals against the peace and dignity
OF the United States, but for Gonspi.
facy to DO the wrOGG. The offence is
completed the moment the compact is
formed, whether any person within the
contemplation Of tho first section has
actually been hindered or, not IF the
traversors never committed any ever. act,
but separated and wont homo aftor the
completion Of tue conspiracy, they have
incurred the penalty which the seventh
section prescribes. So it makes no diff
ference what purticular person the con
splracy, when put III motion, first
reached. The act complained Of is tue
conspiracy, and if it be true that any
person was hindercd or prevented from
the exercise Of the right granted by the
first section, such hindrunce nnd pre-
ventiou is only proof OF tue conspiracy,
and does not, III anywise, tend to make
tho crime moro complete.
1t is generally sufficient, iu churging u
statutory offence, to set it out in the
words OF tho statute.
Ii the statute uses common law
nemo for crime which ii proposes to
punish, the indictment must set forth
the various ingredients Of the crime
which go to make up the offence ut com
mon law. But when tho stntute itself
creates the offence, aud defines it. il is
sufficient if the indictmcntuset the words
OF the statute, unless tho words be indie.
finite and vague. ambiguous or general:
in which case the indictment must so
particularize the act complained of that
tho party charged shall be in no doubt
OF the offence alleged against him.
'Nhn ipt ron,,iral :, k1,,t II. ~.
will enable him to plead the verdict in
bar Of any future action.
It's alleged in this. count TINT this
conspiracy was to go into operation at
an election not yet held, to wit, the third
Wednesday of October, 1872; and it is
objected that this is not sufficient.
That the, right 10 vote is not con-
tlnulng right. but exists only at the time
OF its Immediate exercise. It Wonld ,he
strange, indeed, if parties could not Sc
punished, If it be necessary to punish
them Mt all, for apy offences but those
committed against this Act. on election
day, and in tho direct exercise Of the
elective franchise. The usefulness Of
the Act Q! Congress would be entirely
frustrated BY any such requirement.. 4
man may be SD cffectually intimidated
weeks before an election, that he would
not dare to 90 within milo OF the polls;
aud all the mischicfs the Act is inteudeei
to remedy, wonld flourish, and no pu
nishment could lie awarded them under
this construction. becnuso tho right to
vote IS not subsisting right, but one
which recnrs to tho citizen on election
dny. We do not ap hold.
The uncertainty which tho COUNT
leaves. as to Whether tllis was a State
election or = Federal j. urged AS fatal.
The Indictment charges That this was
conspiracy to violate tho first section
OF tile act. Tits, section uec!arps .la:
all citizens sha il be allowed to vote ut all
elections, WHO are niinlifie1 by Inv to