The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-12-07
TIE REPLY OF THE PROSECUTION.
Continuing the Ku-KluI Trials-Mr.
Chamberlain and Mr. Corbin Reply
70 the Argument OF Mr.. slanberry.
rraoM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT

COLUMBIA, December s.
The United States Court opened this morn
ing at the usual hour, and the case OF the
United statesva. Crosby ct al, for conspiracy
and burglary under the Ku-Klu1 Law, was re-
sumed. 4 ~
Mr.. Stanberry. for the defence, handed in
his authorities, aud spoke at some length IN
explanation Of The grounds OF his motion to
ulash the indictment filed and argued yestsr-
day. He read from Whartons American
Criminal Law, vol. 3, page 2290 and page
2349, the decision OF the Court for the Correc-
tlon OF Errors, In the case OF Lambert vs. the
People, 8 Cowan, 57S, and other authorities,
showing that. In indictments for conspiracy,
The means by which the unlawful act was per-
petrated should be Set forth, the names OF
ent indictment, such means at least should
be alleged as would reasonably prevent per-
son from exercising rng right of suffrage.
Mr.. Chamberlain. for Ine prosecution, re-
piled in support of the indictment as made,
taking up each ground OF exception In 1ts
order. AS to the frat ground of exception
that the conspiracy charged Is to VOL Violate the
section defines no crime or offence, and for
bids nothlpg-he slated that 1t was through
no disrespect to the eminent counsel for The
defence, but that really 1t was impossible for
him to discern any force In the exception. 1t
would seem, from the argument Oh the conn-
sci, that every section of an act should con-
tain prohibition and afaX penalty to render
1t effectual. Such, however. Is not the case.
Sections are but arbitrary aud artificial diVi-
sions of an entirety, and are to be considered
not spgly, but in connection with other sec
| tIons with which they are combined. Nothing
/! is more common in legislative enactments than
that prior sections should assert rights, de-
clare duties. &C., and some anal seclon anl1
! penalty. In the present instance, the ISL
| section defines the right, and the sixth SEC
| ton provides mode Of punishment for vio-
| lation of the first. Az 10 the secord excep-
| tion-that the names of the parties are not Set
| forth-the answer TO that was, that It was un-
necessary TO set forth names In an Indictment
| for conspiracy. Sd Greenleaf on Evidence,
SECTION SO. also In I'd Russell on Crimes, page
| 679, 1t Is shown that In an Indictment tor con-
spring together on o certain day.. through
| fase rumors, to raise the price OF the public
| funds, the Indictment was held good, though
the names of the parties injured were not
| named. Also In the case OF the Com.
| monwealth vs.. Judd, I'd Mass, page 329,
an indictment for consplring together to
intent, q base and spurious compound as gen.
ulne indigo, was held good, though the par.
| ties Injured We're not named. The objects of
q conspiracy may be the public generally, q
certain class or an individual. In the case of
| the Commonwealth VS.. Harlem. 7th Metcalf,
an ayermeut that the parties indicted con-
spired to defraud, 1t was held not supported
by proof that B, or the public generally, have
been defrauded, but that the Indictment would
| have been sustained had 1t been alleged that
| the public generally were intended to be de-
| frauded. In our Indictment, We have not
| taken the latitude allowed us, but instead Of
charging the fraud against the public gene raj
| ". as Is legitimate. have shoudercd an addl-
| tional burden by charging the fraud as against
| which allegation we propose TO sustain Dy
proof.
that the means by which the unlawful preVen-
ton was effected are not set forth, the answer
was also that 1t was unnecessary. 80 Green
leaf on Evidence, section s5-where the inten-
tion Is illegal, the means 10 accomplish IT are
not necessary. I'd Russell on Crimes, page
6Sl, shows that In an indictment the words
..did consplre by indirect means were con-
sldered as surplusage, as also the words "by
devices. pretences aud subtle means"
MIR. Stanberry. The gentleman doesn't
seem to understand the point raised by the
defence here. The statute reads, I'll any per
son shall, by threats, intimidation and Vlo-
Ience.n &C., which facts, we claim it Is neces.
| sary to a!lege. .,
which this indictment Is laid reads III TWO
or more persons shall band or conspire to-
ga,her," &c. No means are stated, and noue
| need be alleged. The counsel reads from the
| Hfth section, which refers simply to indiVld.
uals, aud has no reference 10 q conspiracy. As
| to the objection that no specific election was
named, we reply that Amzi Rainey had right
to vote at any and all elections. The offence
ia general one. Conspiracy ls defined as q
combination or agreement of two or more per
sons, 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 concerted means, to
deprive Amzi Rsiney OF the right to vote at
any election whatsoever completes the crime.
As to the fifth objection, that the qualiaca-
| tions of said male citizens to vote are not set
forth. This conspiracy, as We have already
| stated. is q statutory offence, and the indict-
ment has to be drawn under the statute. 1t
becomes important here to refer to some
rules. From lst Bishop, in criminal proce.
dure, section 359, we read that where offence
is purely statutory, having no reference 10
common laws, 1t is sufficient to charge In
these essential words Of the statute. This is
purely statutory offence. Not that conspiracy
is but conspiracy to violate The provisions ol