The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1871-12-06
jeotion here made is that it is not alleged

IOfSn
when we allege that he was possessed Of
the right of suffrage, secured and qua.
Fanteed TO him under, the Oonstitntion
&C., and all additional qualifications are
unnecessary. for they are charged in sub.
stance when we say that he was oitiaen
lawfully qualified, &c. In the second
place, we answer this is a statutorv
offence-the words of the Act being to
conspire together with intent to ipiure.
oppress, threaten or intimidate any oiti.
zen Of the United States in the free an.
ioyment OF right and privilege qua.
tanteed by the Constitution. 60. and we
have described the offence in the words
OF the statute and named the person
Amzi Rainey, as citizen of the United
States; which is all that is required.
AS to the second objection, that no
day Of election is named, all that we
have said in answer to a similar obieo.
tion to the first count will apply.
Sd. That the unlawful means ara not
set forth. To this we reply, that this is
not an offence that depends upon the
means, the time, or against what parti-
cular individual directed, but the offonce
is complete short of that, and is per-
fected when, in the words of the defini.
ticn. g combination or agreement ia en-
tered into, by concerted means, to do an
unlawful act. It is not necessary to
name the time Of an overt act. would
that could draw upon my imagination
only for case in hand, and were not
stating fact that has happened in this
present year Of grace. Suppose that
TWO or three persons should go in dis
guise at night to the house of Citizen
u colored mans house-should smite his
wife to the floor, ravish his daughter be.
fore his eyes, and, after knocking him
down, drag him out in the woods; should
thereafter, debating the question whe-
ther they will kill or whip him, force
him to take au oath that he will never
vote in certain way. Now, suppose all
this, and suppose the man to be Amzi
Rainey, and shall it be deemed neces-
sary to name day of election? The
distinguished counsel say they are not
disposed to be captious, nor to take ad-
vantage of technicalities, and yet they
demand OF Us, under these circumstances.
to show aL what election Amzi Eainey
was hlndered in the free exercise of the
elective franchise by that oath. The Of
fence was complete when he was made
to take the outh, if there never should
be any election whatever.
as TO the objeotion that the Indictment
included charge of burglary, which
was domestic crime, and cognizable
only under the laws of the State, MIR.
Chamberlain went on to say that he ac-
corded due force to the argument OF the
defence on that point, and agreed that
this court cannot take jurisdiction of an
offence against the State of South Caro-
,ina. Section seven of the Act provides
that if, in the act of violating the provi-
sions of section of the Act, any other
felony shall be committed, the offender
shall be punished in such manner as is
prescribed by the laws of the State for
such crime. It was not the intention of
the Government to try for burglary, but
simply upon conviction for the conspi-
racy, to make the penalty the same as
for burglary under the State laws. This
comes very short of this count taking
cognizance of the crime of burglary.
We found that burglary had been com.
mitted, and set it forth in the words of
an indictment in South Carolina, not to
try the offence, but to serve as the mea-
sure of punishment as contemplated by
the statute. The sentence will not be
for burglary, but the court will merely
refer to the laws of the State for bur
glary, and afiix that penalty to the con-
spiracy.
The first objection in the fourth count
is. that This count does not allege that
Amzi Rainey was a citizen of the United
States. This-oount is drawn under the
Hfth section, which reads, "any per.
son." &C., and not citizen of the United
States. AS to the objection, '.That it is
not alleged that he was otherwise quail
led than by the fifteenth amendment. I"
we admit that the fifteenth amendment
does not absolutely grant any right of
suffrage, but practically and really it
does secure and guarantee to colored
persons such right, and We have simply
followed the chosen words of the Act.
The objections to the fifth count being
the same as to the fourth, tho same re-
ply ls appllcabla; 80 also the sixth and
seventh. 1t was objected to the eighth
count that the preservation of the right
to be secure In person and papers
against unreasonable searches. seizure,
&o., was the province of the State laws.
The Act under which this count was
made. was intended simply to enforce
the provisions of the fourteenth and fif-
teenth amendments to the Constitution.
Ii such power is vested in Congress as
we understood the honorable counsel
yesterday to admit, then we hold that
IN this instance, Congress was merely
intending to protect Amzi Rainey and
others from unreasonable search, seiz-
ure, &C.. rights guaranteed to them by
the Constitution. It is true, that per-
sonal rights are protected by the State
laws; but is it not eminently proper,
also. that Congress should enforce such
provisions OF the Constitution as effect
them? Certainly it is in this instance;
for while it be true that the honorable
counsel AS he says-and are protected
by the State laws from personal harm, it
is equally true that AMI Rainey was
not; and Congress hes come forward and
said wa will nrntect vou