The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1872-06-08
THE ANNE ARUNDEL ELECTION CASES

LIE ANNE AhUNDEL ELEO llUN SASEos
AS promised in our last, we continue our
report of these election cases, tried in the
U. S. Circuit Court recently, for the pur-
pose, mainly, of furnishing the law gov
erning them as laid down by the U. s.
Judges.
The only cases tried beside the one report
ed was that against Thomas Perry and
indictment, found under the fourth Sec
tion of the Enforcement Act, with having,
on the 7th day of November, 1871, at the
polls of the Eighth Election District of
Anne Arundel county conspired to I'M
lawfully prevent colored citizens from vot-
ing on that day.
The second count charged that, in pur-
suance of their conspiracy, they crowded
together about the polls, while the election
was being held, in such manner as to pre-
vent colored persons from voting.
The evidence disclosed the fact that
early in the morning Of the election day,
the approach to the window where votes
were received was occupied by some $50 or
200 colored men, that several white voters
did not choose to approach, for the purpose
of voting, through tine crowd Of negroes,
and went to back door and were admit
ted to the inside of the building, and, with
many others, (whites) were allowed to
vote inside. There was no evidence to
prove that the colored men offered any vio-
lence to prevent the approach of white
voters, and that the only cause for their
going around to the back door, was that
they did not wish to pass through the
crowd. One of the Judges of Election
the Return Judge appointed a constable,
lone of the persons indicted to clear the
way to the window, and authorized him to
employ any force necessary to keep the
way open for all. The constable summoned
to his aid the other parties named in the
indictment, and they proceeded to form a
possee, around the window, where they
stood during the day in a sort of ring or
semicircle, requiring the voters to approach
the window one by one. The testimony
suggested that, although there might have
been purpose, in the arrangement by
which the traversers were appointed and
acted to secure the polling Of all white
voters, in case there Should not be time to
poll the entire vote of the District, (some
500 yet that, the whole vote being polled,
the object was not attained. There was
no attempt to prove that the traversers
were in collision with any others to carry
out such purpose, and the testimony gen.
orally left a doubt in the minds of Jurors
and District Attorney as to the guilt of
the parties under the indictment. The
District Attorney stated at the close of
the defence that he would not, in view of
the testimony, ask for conviction, but
asked the Court to grant an instruction to
the Jury defining the law, which it did as
follows:
"The Jury are instructed that if they
should find from the evidence that the
traversers in the execution Of the duty
assigned them by the Judges of Election
on the day Of Election, undertook arbi-
trarily to select from the voters then pres
ent and offering to vote one class of voters
i'll preference to another, who should be
permitted to vote first, and did so carry
out such selection, irrespective of the offer
to vote, then such action was an obstruc-
ton of the voting within the meaning of
the fourth section of the act of May 31st,
1870"
The Jury thereupon rendered a verdict of
not guilty.
The case of George w. Nutwell, as far
as it progressed, we take entire, from the
report of the american, only stating, on
information of party present in the court
man who is referred to below as being
absent when the case was called for trial,
was in the court room and answered to his
name fifteen OF twenty minutes before. 1t
was generally reported in the court room
that he had been tempered with or threat
ened and had left in consequence. The
other witness Henry Mas, named in the
Indictment was reported as concealed in
the interest of the traverser. This case
was finally disposed of for the late term,
by continuance till November next, the
witnesses not being found.
The case of the United States against
George w. Nutwell, charged with violat-
ing The fourth section of the Enforcement
act by hiudering certain legally qualified
voters of the Eighth Election District of
Anne Arundel county from exercising the
right of suffrage, was taken up in the
United States Circuit Court yesterday
morning. The specific wrongs alleged to
ment as follows:
That George w. Nutwell on the It'll of
November, 1871, at the Eighth Election
District of Anne Arundel county, unlaw-
fully did then and there by force prevent
and obstruct one Henry Mas, then and
there citizen of the United States of
African race and descent, from voting at
the General Election of the State of Mary
land held on that day (being the Monday
next after the first Tuesday in the month
of November,) in pursuance to the laws
and Constitution of the said State for the
choice amongst other State officers, of three
delegates to represent the said county in
the House of Delegates of the State of
Maryland, contrary to the form of the
Statute of the United States of America
in such case made and provided, to wit, to
the fourth section of the act of Congress
entitled can act to enforce the right of
citizens to vote in the several States of this
Union. and for other purposes, approved
May 31st, 1870, and against the peace, &C."
The section of the Enforcement act on
which the indictment is founded is as fol-
lows:
eff any person, by force, bribery,
threats, intimidation or other unlawful
means, shall hinder. delay, prevent or
obstruct, or shall combine and confederate
with others to hinder, delay, prevent or
obstruct any citizen from doing any act
required to be done to qualify him to vote
or from voting at any election aforesaid,
such person shall for every such offence for
felt and pay the sum of $500 to the person
aggreved thereby, to be recovered by an
action on the case, with full cost and such
allowances for counsel fees as the Court
shall deem just, and shall also for every
such offence be guilty Of a misdemeanor,
and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined
not less than $500 or be imprisoned not
less than one year, or both, at the discre-
ton of the Court"
70 tho Indictment tho onupca1 far tho |