The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-12-11
THE PROCEEDINGS ON SATURDAY.
Sharp Practice OF the Prosecution
The Objections OF the Defence-Spec-
ulations as to tho Result.
[FRoM OUR SPECIAL REpoRrKR.l

[FRoM OUR SPECIAL REPoRTERl
COLUMBIA, s. c., December 8.
In the Ku-Klu1 court the first thing done
this morning was the entering of the plea Of
guilty of Hezekiah Porter, In person, who
had pleaded BY his counsel yesterday. The
tardiness of the district attorney kept the
court in waiting for some time, but was ex-
planned by Mr. Chamberlain, who Is associated
with the attorney In fixing up these cases.
The grand jury returned the following true
bills: United States vs. Robert Hayes Mitchell,
Sylvanus Shearer, William shearer, Hugh 81.
Shearer, James B. Shearer, Hugh Kell. Henry
Warllch, James Neal, Addison Carol, Miles
Carol, Eli Ross Stewart and John Martin, and
of the following In another indictment: John
". Mitchell, Joseph Mitchell Thomas B. White.
sides, Melton Watson, William Good, Roland
McCreight, Newton Osment Neil, Chas. Byers,
John Davis, Capers Scott and Harrod Neil.
Also true bills against james William Avery,
james RUFUS Bratton, Chambers Brown, Alon-
20 Brown, Robert Riggings, Ruins Mclain,
Napoleon Miller, William Johnson, PInokney
Caldwell, Robert j. Caldwell, Robert Dixon
Byham, John s. Bratlon, Harvey Gumny, Bas-
comb Kennedy and Holbr0ok Good.
After the presenting Ot the foregoing true
bills, the prosecution INDUCED in little Of
what seemed TO be upon the surface "sharp
practice for which they were sternly rebuked
By Mr.. Stanberry of the defence. 1t occurred
in this wise : About two weeks ago a true bill
was found against James Rufus Bratton and
others, and for some reason they mol. pressed
the first bill, and substituted the new one, to-
day presented by the grand jury. The defence
insisted that 1t was contrary to the agreement
entered into, under which the prisoners had
pleaded guilty, to substitute another bill. The
prosecution stated that the difference between
this bill and the former one was, that while
both contained charge OF murder-upon
carrying The case up to the Supreme Cont
the second count In the bill, which had been
decided bad by the court (the second count
having been repealed In the third count, and
murder added to the charge of conspiracy
was omitted. while the new counts contained
in this new bill were based upon the decision
of the court In the AmZi Raiuey case.
After repeated objections by the defence to
this mode OF procedure, the court ruled that,
as this new bill contained the charge Of muir
der, 1t was no violation of the agreement
| entered into when the prisoners pleaded
guilty, and that when the objections were put
| In proper shape, they would certify any divi-
zion 80 that the points can be carried up to
the Supreme Court. Under the very singular
course taken by the prosecution, the defence
asked until Monday to put the objections In
form, and for further examination of this
new Indictment, which they had then seen for
the first time. The court grated the request.
The remainder OF the day was occupied by
Mr.. Stanberry, who, under the reserved ques-
ton of Friday, when the four prisoners plead
guilty Of intimidation of voters, made long
| and able argument In support Of the objection
| to the manner Of ascertaining the measure OF
punishment adopted and urged by the prose-
| cution, who, by every means In their power,
have beeIl endeavoring to convince the court
that the prisoners should be punished under
! the sixth section of the act, which inficts q