The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-02-04
THE CAMDEN RIOTERS.
Conclusion of the Trial-,JudEe Nixon's Charge
XernICI asniIIY.


States District Court at Trenton, has occupied that
the he
charge by Judge Nixon, which a..S occupied one
Souders, one OF the accused, has been made the
test case. The Court said the indictment was
founded under the act OF Congress approved in
May Of last year. 1t contained three counts for him
deIing various persons from exercising the right Of
suffrage two OF which persous appeared not be
legal voters. Neither the Court the jury should
exercise any judgment as to whether the provisions
OF the act OF Congress under which the indictment
was found were wise or unwise. The Court held
there three things for the Government t.
prove First, that the election at which the otfense
charged was committed was for member OF Con-
gress, and that person was hindered from voting
thereat; second that the person iuterfered with
was qu9llhed voter or the state aud precinct at
the time OF such election; and third, that the de-
fendant unlawfully prevented such voter from eX-
ercsing the right of suffrage by force threats, or
Judge Nixon observed the law was not made for
the protection OF class, and even If 1t were, that
after some colored men voted they again fell into
line, with the intention of voting second time,
that constituted no excuse for an attack on them
or any others The Government insisted that
Souders was among those who attacked the
colored men, and assisted in driving three
OF them from the polls in the afternoon.
The defense insists that the allegations OF the
Government are noF proven, particularly insisting
on no connection with the afternoon riot The
evidence, he said, was sometimes conflicting and
sometime doubtful, and the jnry would have t.
carefully distinguish between positive and mega
1--WE evidence. II one person sees a lllIg anu
ninety nine fail to IL, the formers testimony
must not be dscredted unless the ninety-nne
were 80 situated that they could not have
failed TO it. The jury must consider
the conduct OF both parties on the occasion The
Judge particularly charged the jury 10 be careful
not in any way allow prejudice TO interfere with
their verdict Was it not natural Tor the cOOred
men, being there In numbers, to form line, as the
whites would doubtlessly have done? Had the
whites any right to interfere? Witnesses all agreed
that the colOred men were peaceabe before the at
tack but after that their conduct violent In the
extreme Whether they were JUSTIFIED under the Cir
cumstances was a question for the jury to decide.
The afternoon outrage was particularly bold and
bare, and while many witnesses swOre Souders was
there, only one positively said he was not and that
witness name was Martin, who appears to be one
OF the parties indicted for riot this occasion
In cOncusion the court said If there aay doubt
as to the guilt OF defendant the jury must give hm
the full benefit thereof "Let no feeling on your
mart that in such high-handed outrages somebody
ought TO suffer induce you TO visit upon his head II
there Is reasonable doubt Of his guilt, the trans
gTession OF Others"
AtllK A. NJ, Judge Nixon having concluded his
charge, the jury retired According 10 a despatch
published elsewhere, it win be seen that Francis
SOuders whose case was made test one, has been
found guilty by the jury.