The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-12-07

Client when we charge in the essential words
Of the act. The statutory offence Is In these
words: "Shall conspire or band together 10
violate the provisions OF this act" and we
have only put burden on ourselves in
using the words to deprive certain male cti-
zens, of African descent, Of the free exercise
of the right Of suffrage; the words are unneces-
sary In themselves, and we are, therefore, not
required to state the qualifications Of the
voters. State vs. Gould, 81 New Hampshire,
$40; let Bishop on criminal law, 373; Earps
case, I'd Lewia, lss. The great and general
answer TO all the foregoing objections is that
we are indicting under a statute, and chargea
violation Of the provision OF the first section;
and all additional allegations, such as
that the parties Injured were male clu-
zens of African descent, are simply
gralultous, and burden Us witt additional
proof, but are not essential to sustain the
indictment. So much for the objections to
the first count. Now, let US consider. the OBJ
jections to the second count The first OBJ
jection here made is that it Is not alleged that
Raiuey was qualified to vote, but simply
stated that he was citizen of the United
States. We say. In the first place. that It
substantially set forth when we allege that he
was possessed of the right of suffrage, secur-
ed and guaranteed 10 him under The constitu-
tion, &C., and all additional qualifications are
unnecessary, for they are charged In sub
stance when we say that he was citizen law
fully qualified, &c. In the second place, wa
answer this Is a statutory ofence-the words
OF the act beiDgto conspire together with In
tent to injure, oppress threaten or. il'tmi-
date any citizen OF the United States IN ne
free enjoyment of right and privilege 1 r.
anteed by the constitution &C., and we Lav,
described the offence in the words of the stat
ute and named the person Amzt RAiney, as q
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 similar objection to the hrst count
will apply.
Third. That the unlawful means are not set
forth. To this we reply that this is not an
offence that depends upon the means, the
time, or against what particular Individual
directed, but the offence Is complete short OF
that, and Is perfected when, In the words of
the definition, combination or agreement Is
entered into, by concerted means, to do an
time OF an overt act l would that could
draw upon my Imagination only for case In
hand, and were not stating 8 fact that has hap
pened In this present year of grace. Suppose
that TWO or three persons should go 10 dis
gulss, at night, to the house OF citizen
coiored mans house-should smite his
wife to the floor, ravlsh his daughter before
his ewes, and, after knocking him down, drag
him out In the woods, should thereafter, de-
batting the question whether they would kill or
whip him, force him to take an oath that he
will never vote In cetain way. Now, sup
pose all this, and suppose the man to be Amzl
Rainey, and shall 1t be deemed necessary to
name day of election! ! The distinguished
counsel say they are not disposed to be cap
tIous, nor TO take advantage Of technicalities,
and vet they demand OF us. under these clrcum.
stances, to show at what election Amzl Rainey
was hindered In the free exercise OF the elec-
tive FRANCHISE by that oath. The offence was
complete when he was made to take the oath,
If there never should be any election what
ever.
AS to the objection that the indictment In
cluded charge Of burglary, which was DO
mestic crime. aud cogniza6le only under the
laws of the State, Mr.. Chamberlain went on to
say that he accorded due force to. the argu-
ment of the defence on that point, and agreed
that th court cannot take jurisdiction OF an
offence against the State Of South Carolna-
Section seven Of the act provides that II, IN
the act OF violating the provisions OF sectlon
mltted, the offender shall be punished In such
manner US is prescribed by the laws OF the
State for such crime. II was not the Intention
OF the government to try for burglary, out
simply upon conviction for the conspiracy, 10
make the penalty the same as for burglary un-
der the State laws. This comes very short OF
This count taking cognizance OF the crime OF
Committed, and set It forth in tie words Of an
Indictment In South Caroline, not to try the
offence, but to serve as the measure of punish
ment as contemplated by the statute. The
sentence will not be- TOR burglary, but the
curt will merely refer to the lava OF the
state for burglary, and afhx thst penalty TO
the conspiracy.
that this count does not allege that Amzl
Rainey was citizen of the United States.
| This count ls drawn under the fifth section,
which reads, 'tauy person." &c, aud not q
citizen of the United States. As to the OBJ
lection, "rLat 1t /, not alleged that he was
otherwise qualified than by the fifteenth
amendment, we admit that the tlteenlh
amendment does not absolutely grant any
right Of suffrage, but practically and really IL
does secure aud guarantee 10 colored persons
such right, and we have simply followed the
chosen words OF the act.
The objection to the fifth count being the
same as to the fourth, the same reply Is appll-
cable: so also the sixth and seventh. IL was
oblecied to the eighth count that the preser,
vation of the right 10 be secure IN person ano
papers against unreasonable searches, selz-
tlres. &C., 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 flfteeth amendments to the
constitution. II such power Is vested In Con
gress, as we understood The honorable coun-
sci yestesday to admit, then we hold lnat ID
this Instance Congress was merely intending
| to protect Amzl Ralney and others from un'
reasonable search, seizure. &C., rights guar
anteed to them by the constitution. 1t is true
that personal rights are protected by the STATE
laws: but Is 1t not emlnently proper, also, lnal
| Congress should enforce such provisions OF tne
constitution as affect them Certainly IL Is 10
this instance; ior while 1t be true that the non
orable counsel = as he says-and are protect-
ed by the State laws from personal harm, II is
equally true that AMI Rainey was not; ana
Congress has come forward and said, we Will
protect you. .,,. ,ro
The objection to the ninth count Is that we
have not specified what laws OF the equal pro-
lection of which Amzi Rslney was deprived.
Our reply is that 1t Is unnecessary, lnasmucn
as we have charged in the words OF the act;
The objections to The tenth count being Inc
same as the preceding, we make the same
| reply. ,-,.,,,, .,
At the conclusion of Mr.. Chamberlain's ar
gument, the court took recess OF hneen
minutes. When the court resumed, MI. COT
bin followed at some length In support OF Inc
Indictment, explaining and expoundlng the
views advanced by his colleague. When he
had concluded. the court, at the request OF
Mr. johnson, adjourned till tomorrow, at ten
o'clock, when Mr.. johnson will close the argu-
ment for the defence. PICKET.
THE VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE.