The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-02-17
THE B. T; B;AILO T-B0K .
CHARGE oF HIS HONOR JUDGE
B. r Fl N.

| i Ill Ia u II II IL " u " IA
| e--
CHARGE. oF HIS HONOR JUDGE
BR Fl N.
The End of the Chapter-Tkc Hand. of
Justies-The Purity of Elections to be
Enforced.
| - -.
After twenty one days Of patient hearing,
Including three days OF argument, IN which
Messrs. N. P. O'Connor and R H. Seymour, as
counsel for defonce, aud Messrs. D. 7. Coroin
and Geo. D. Bryan, as counsel for the government,
distin guished themselves for eloquence, zeal and
ability, his Honor Judge Bryan delivered the
charge to the jury, Of which the following Is an
abstract. He said:
Gentlemen OF the Jury-we have come together
to exercise the highest aHd most sacred functton
known to the law. 1t is cur greaL oince az Juage
and jury to execute Justice without partlallty,
| favor or affection. Were we governed oy friend
ship, political considerations or pri9ase preju-
| dces, under such circumstances as these, we
should prove traitors to our trust ana 1alse alike
10 God and our country. The spirit OF our insti.
| tutions the whole temper Of our people relolces
In fair play. Hence 1t Is that juries areso drawn,
especially In this court, embracing as tney 40
citizens from diferert sections OF the Slate, that
il is impossible for any combination to exist on
the mart of the government for the purpose Of un.
Justly oonvic;ihg q. person OF crime. Hence re-
ssss thss aYaed the
! and took advantage Of ten peremptery challenges
| and that the government itself is free Tom the
imputalion Of partially. ~ mas osel ttHmsteo Ina @
splration OF this proceeding has not been love
| OF Justice and desire to enforce ana man
| tain the law, but to give personal aaVantage 10
outside Of the case t aaye We g9nc W say nos
session OF the government, the ef1lcer charged
with the execution Of the criminal law OF tne
country would have been delinquent naa ,, ne not NOT
eyeB to the fact that men. through party feellng
| freunenhy become the ministers OF Justice ana.
bring Offenders to punishment. lt may ne oe.
one party has regarded user Us nss
oeen put in motion whereby the truth IS TO be
eliminated; and the facts being brought to the
attention OF the prosecuting officer IL was MS
duty 10 proceed The question for yon to con.
sder is whether these pa ties are guilty, t mat.
ters not who brought the witnesses nere-do they
speak the truth? Does the evidence convince you
that the parties accused are gnnty ~ Lbs is ISSss
aims and influences may .RaVe olasseu tne tesu.
rnony Of witnesses and caused them, II at ALL to
swerve from the truth
the part played by Mr.. Judd that he is an ohcer OF
this court-a preliminary judge, and while he
might have acted more prudentyin III surrounding
himself with safeguards to prevent tue SUSPICION
that he acted in the interest OF party, can vel
conceive that he acted In good faith, and under
what he regarded bis responsibility TO 10 ana pup.
lie duty when coming into possession OF those pal
had heen hammered with. He came into their pos
session legally but 1t Is not my ONCE TO determine
FOR YOU what weight, under the circumstances,
YOU shall attach to his testimony. only say tnat
in my esteenl,it was hislegal right 10 40 whae ne
did AS 10 the conduct OF any otter officer OF the
law, It Is unnecessary for me TO make any re.
marks. d. not know that any OF them nave
acted out OF their llue OF duty.
The Inquiries you VIII c9naaer Gods are wnesass ss
the law requires; whether they erased names
from ballots and inserted others, and whether
they abstracted ballots and substituted others IN
their stead. 1t is not my purpose 10 analyze tne
evidence, because It has already been thoroughly
cauYassed by the distinguished counsel FOR the
prosecution and the defence. am sure can aou
noting, SO far as the prosecution Is concerned, TO
the lucid and cogent presentment OF evidence and
artumerlt by the counsel for the government. ]
could not hope 10 add to his unsparlng Vlgor, ano
I may add, 70 his entire candor.
Jhe burden which Is imposed upon the govesn-
ment 10 this case. In order TO coavlct teese par;
testimony as to the acts attributed TO theSe COM
missioners, the case must rest upon cireumstan-
tal evidence alone. And "to convict on clrcQm-
santla evidence the Jury must aoS only nad sass ~
| the facts but that these fac's clearly ana une.
uuivocalIy imply the guilt Of Ihe accused and are
irrecOnciiabe with any hypothesis OF innocence"
Applying this law TO the evidence, It ls LOT you TO
say whether the district attorney has not, ID
tracinssstep by step the movement OF the ballot
boxes and the actions OF the commissioners, made
it matter OF moral certainty that the managers
scrIbed. The alternative stated Is the possible
guilt Of the managers, or the quit Of
the commissioners. You. are 6rst to pc
convinced that the boxes were, tampered with.
You may then ask who did III We're the charges
made before the boxes reached The hands Of the
commissioners, or afterwardsf II made after.
wards were they made by the commisslonersS
Gould any one else have done itf is there ra.
tional belief that any one else could have done II
If SO, that relieves these parties. Circumstances
must convince You tU moral certainty 'nat tney
alone could have dor 1t. AS to the res1onsioli-
ties assumed BY the commissioners IN taxing
charge Of the ballot boxes contrary to the wish
expressed by the public meeting held, they had
right to keep the ooxea where they pleased: Tne
law is sienpon the subject. Yet the commission
respons s nsibiiity and created doubt which other
wise might not have attached to them.
In conclusion, the Judge remarked that he could
not instruct the jury whether the commissioners
had violated the law or not:t It was for the jury
to decide taking into consideration the political
atmosphere whlch, :surroupded the case, and al
the facts connected with its development and pre-.
seneation.
The Jury retired and remained out the greater
part OF heday, snd twice returned In oourtfor
Instructions About haltpast six the Indictment
was returned with the following endorsement: .
We IND that the frauds charged have been COM
mit,ed but are unable to agree as to the persons
who have perpetrated them.
"Ao ' W JOHN i. CARsw. Foreman.
This was objected to BY the counsel for the de-
fence as nosbeing special verdict or proper
finding. They maintained that 1t should be
stricken out and NOT allowed to remain upon the
record. The prosecution maintained that It
should remain, and That although not special
verdict, It was legal expression Of the opinion
OF the Jury. After long discussion, the writing
was allowed to remain with the following. en-
dorsement on the Indictment:
Tue above is received from the foreman as
having only the force Of verbal statement or
the grounds Of their difficulty In coming to any
verdict, aud not as special verdict:
United States District Judge for South Carolina.
The d!saiet attorney having stated that he was
compelled now to leave for Columbia, the dis
cuss!on was closed, anu the jury not having been
able to agree upon their verdict, mistriA was
ordered. It was also ordered that the case be
o., &bo uritad Stotoo rJrnrkt 0Ourk to