The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-12-29
JFRoa OUR SPECIAL REpoRTsR.l

Inc UQlleQ SCaLeS ClTCluI OUuIt lSasSciuuiSu
this morning after Its Christmas recess, and,
as usual, attracted full house. At the open.
ing of the court Mr.. Corbin produced an affi-
davit from one OF the colored witnesses for
the defence, who, it was stated, had been
warned to leave the city or refrain from tes-
tifSip3 under the penalty of some vague b ut
terrible punishment The affidavit was from
Nose Edwards, and was to the effect that he
had not been threatened and had left the city
OF his own accord. This was read to the
court, and this will, doubtless, be the end of
the efforts of the dstrict-attorney, voluntarily
and ostentatlously undertaken by him the
other day, to bring the Radical Ku-Klux to
trial and punishment.
Mr.. Stanberry then filed motion for new
trial in the case of Robert Hayes Mitchell, on
the ground that the verdict of the jury was
contrary to the law and the evidence. He
argued that the count of the indictment, un-
Ader which the verdict OF guilty had been
pdered. charged an offence against the act
April 20, 1871, and was indeed framed IN
exact languace of the second section OF
that act while the alleged conspiracy against
Jim Williams existed, If at all, long before the
passage of that act, and eliminated In the
hanging of that individual on the night OF
March s, 1871, six weeks before any such con-
spiracy had been provided against by Con-
gressonal enactment. The act OF May, 1870,
while 1t provided against great variety OF
offences, did not happen to provide against
such conspiracy as was charged In that
count. namely, conspiracy to ln1ure, &c.,
citizen because he had voted for certain can
didate at past election. 1t was evident that
Congress did not interpret the act Of 1870 as
providing against just such conspiracy 0e-
cause they made such q provision, specifically,
in the act of 1871, thus intending to supply an
omission In the act of 1870
Mr. Corbln contended that the count was
drawn under the act of 1870, and that the Of
fence alleged was provided against by that
act> Mr.. Stanberry repeated emphatically
ls7lkand he told the gentleman OF the other
SIDE that he knew he had drawn 1t under that
act. He submitted that TO punish crime
committed on the 9Th of March, under an act
passed the goth of the following April, was too
patent an absurdity to be entertained for
moment, unles the court were prepared to as
sumo the very grave responsibility OF inter-
pret,ng that act of 1871 as an &c post fdcto
law, retrospective in It's application and ope-
ration. Judge Bond announced that the
court would decide the motion for
q new trial at a future date, and nc
arrest of judgment. and spoke at some
LENGTH thereto The motion was made, he
said. on the ground that the whole of both OF
the acts under which these proceedings were
begun ,oere o,t-and.out unconstitutional ana
,nauthorized by the old constitution or any OF
the amendments, ancient or modern, thereto.
he confessed that he did not hope for favor
able opinion from bis honor, the presiding
Justice, who had already given sufficient inti-
nations ofhis intention to maintain the con-
- stitutonality of these acts, but he did enter.
tertaln the hope that the court might divide
nnoofi0n ond enable the
case to 20 before the Supreme Court without
the clrcumloculion of writs of habeaS corpus
and certiordri. He admitted that he found
but little satisfaction in arguing the question
of constitutlouality before that court, and ne
ou!d, therefore. touch very oriehy on tne
those Of 1870 and 1871 were not proper legisla
tion to enforce the fifteenth amendment Tha
amendment declared simply that the rlgn
of o person otherwise qualified to vote
should not be abridged "by reason OF race,
color or previous condition of seryitude," ant
no az of Congress passed to enforce such an
amendment could ultimately 60 beyond the
powers granted by that amendment. These
acts. however, in all their punitive sections
took cognizance of all manner Of Offences
nst the ballot, assumed supervision ovel
whole subject Of elections for members
hgress, did not pretend to be connned {:
question OF race, color, &C., but punished
references of all kinds with any voter
hite or black, Radical or Democrat, and
I've to the United States courts jurisdiction
Ter these whole matters, making the differ
It States powerless to protect the purity o
cir own elections The act OF 1871 sought t
nish repeating, bribery, vollng out Of I'M
oper districts, &C., and ne asked what righ
Congress obtained to make such legislation
old Constitution gave Congress the right Z
bcribe the "time, place and manner" of tn
tion of its own members. but that wore
&nnern could not be strained so as to include
offences as were then provided ag gainst, ol
Ve the United States Courts jurisdiction t
h such offences. He quoted Story t
1that the word ssmanner" in the constitu
terred only to such details Of election
ng by ballot or Uica roce, voting OF
or separate tickets, electing by ma
r plurality, &c. Every one. OF th'
provided against in these acts wer'
against by State laws In every Stat
Mon, and he declared that there ha'
lefore been attempted so daring ant
bus step to rob the States Of one Q
efest jewels-the right to guard tn
their own elections, and bring tina
hit within the rapidly increasing cir
Bin attempted no reply to this argu
ment, the court reserved Its opinion, and In
district attorney then called the cases c
Samuel G. Brown and John 8. Miller Jointly
indicted for conspiracy to prevent diver
male citizens from exercising the right {
voting in October, 1872. Both the defendant
werp nrpsept and Mr., Brown, who Is tne