The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1871-12-06

TIE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT-
TRIAL OF KU KLux OAsEs.-TUEsDAY,
December 5.-The court convened at
101 A. NJ, Hon. Hugh L. Bond and
Hon. George 8. Bryan presiding.
The case OF the United States rs. Allen
Crosby ct dk, for conspiracy against
Amzi Rainey, and for burglary under
the Acts Of Congress Of May 81, 1870,
and April 20, 1871, was resumed. Mr..
Stanberry, for the defence, handed in
his authorities. and spoke at some
length in explanation Of the grounds of
his motion to quash the indictment filed
and argued yesterday. He read from
Whartons American Criminal Law. vol.
3. page 2. .29O and page 2,349. the deci-
Errors In the case OF Lambert ps. the
People, 8 Cowan, 676. and other authori-
ties, showing that in indictments for
conspiracy, the means by which the un-
lawful act was perpetrated should be set
forth, the names OF the parties injured,
&c., and that in the present Indictment,
such means at least should be alleged as
would reasonably prevent q person from
exercising the right Of suffrage.
Mr. Chamberlain, for the prosecution,
replied in support Of the indictment as
made, taking up each ground Of exoep.
| tion in its order. As to the first ground
Of exoeption-that the conspirac,
charged is 20 violate the fret section OF
the Aot OF May 81, 1870, which section
defines no crime or offence and forbids
nothing-he stated that it was through
| no disrespect to the eminent counsel for
the defence, but that really it was impos-
sible for him to discern any force in the
exception. It would seem, from the
argument of the counsel, that every eec-
ton Of an ACT should contain prohibi-
ton and affix penalty to render it
effectual. Suoh, however, is not the
case. Sections are but arbitrary and
artificial divisions Of I'M entirety, and are
to be considered not singly, but in con-
neotIon with other sections with which
they ore combined. Nothing is more
common in Legislative enactments than
that prior sections should assert rights.
declare duties, &c., and some final sec.
ton aftix penalty. In the present in
stance, the first section defines the right
and the sixth section provides mode oi
punishment for violation of the first
AS to the second exception-that the
names OF the parties are not set forth
the answer to that was, thnt it was unne-
cessary to set forth names in nm indiot-
ment for conspiracy. Sd Greenleaf on
Evidence. SEQ. 80, also in I'd Russell on
Crimes, page 679. it is shown that in an
Indictment for oo1spirins together On a
certain day, through false rumors, to
raise the price OF the public funds, the
indictment was held good, though the
names OF the parties injured were moi
named. Also in the case of the Com
monvealth vs. Judd, I'd Mass, page 329,
an indictment for conspiring together to
manufacture and sell, with fraudulent
intent, base and spurious compound as
genuine indigo, was held good, though
the parties injured were not named. The
objects of conspiracy may be the pub
.io generally, certain class or an indi-
vidual. In the case of the Common
wealth oS. Harlem. 7th Metcalf, an aver
nent that the parties indicted oonspired
to defraud, it was held not supported by
proof that B, or the public generally,
have been defrauded, but that the in.
dlctmsnt would have been sustained,
had 1t been alleged that the public gene
rally were intended to be defrauded. In
our Indictment, we have not taken the
latitude allowed US, but instead oil
charging the fraud against the public
generally, as is legitimate, have shoul-
dered an additional burden by charging
the fraud as against various male citizens
OF African descent, which allegation we
propose to sustain by proof.
10 the third objection to the first
count: that the means by which the un-
lawful prevention was effected are not
set forth, the answer was also that it was
unnecessary. Sd Greenleaf on Evidence,
section 95-Where the intention is iile
gal, the means to accomplish it are not
necessary. I'd Russell on Grimes, page
69l. shows that in an Indictment the
words 'did conspire by indirect means"
we're considered as surplusage, as also
the words "by devices, pretences and
subtle means"
MIR. Stanberry- gentleman doesn't
seem to understand the point raised b,
the defence here. The statute reads.
III any person shall, by threats, intimi-
dation and violence" &c., which facts
we claim, it is necessary to allege.
MIR. Chamberlain-The sixth section
under which this indictment is laid reads:
III two or moro persons shall band or
oonspire together" go. No means are
stated, and none need be alleged. The
counsel reads from the fifth section,
which refers simply to individuals, and
has no reference to conspiracy. As to
the objection that no specific election
was named, we reply that Amzi Rainey
had right to vote at any and oil cleo
tions. The offence is O general one.
Conspiracy is defined as q combination
or agreement Of two OF more persons, by
concerted means, to do an unlawful act.
or to do lawful act by unlawful means.
The conspiracy need never have been
effected, but the simple intent, by con-
certed means, to deprive Amzi Rainey
of the right TO yote al any election What
soever completes the crime.
AS to the fifth objection, that the qua
ilfications OF said male citizens to vote