The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-06-13

naIignity, it required very careful considers
tion; therefore he would be glad to hear th'
opinions of counsel. Here were two men
F'orcy and Hughes, who seem to have beer
duly registered, and their votes were refused
though they were Of lawful aee and there
was no question of identity. 1t was not hi.
purpose 10 inquire whether this prosecutior
was commenced by the 'custom-h0usf
ring" or not, nor was It OF the slightest i'm.
pOrtance.
After some conversation between counsel
and the Commissioner, the counsel for the
defence retired for consultation. They were
out about five or ten minutes, and having
returned to the courtroom, the argument
was commenced by Major w. F. Worthug.
ton. the Assistant District Attorney of the
United States.
TIE ARGUMENT.
Major Wortingtou read and explained
the third section of the enforcement act, and
lnaintaised that Forcy, Hughes, and others
had sufficiently identified themselves as tie
voters they claimed 10 be, and that the judges
OF election had done wrongful act in re-
fuslng to allow them to vote upon the pro.
duction OF their af1idavits.
MAJOR K. G. Pegram, OF Petersburg, fo.-
lowed for the accused. He held that the nc.
tion OF the judges Of election was thoroughly
honest, and not such as they could be pun
iShed for under any law, admitting, as be
did not, that they erred in their decisions.
He did not think that the right to vote of
Forcy, Hughes, aud others WIS sufficiently
proved. Without regard to purpose the
judges lawfully excluded them from voting.
lie called especial attention to the fact that
these persons who claimed the right to vote,
and declared they were registered, brought
up custom.house atfidaYits swearing that
they had been prevented from voting.
Dir. Pegram said, in the course of bis elo-
quent remarks, that the District Attorney
had conducted the case very fairly, and he
commended him for it..
Mr.. NeesOn, aS one Of the couose for the
accused, confessed his modification at bay-
ing TO be here defending before 4 United
States tribunal the action OF the officers of
the old Commonwealth. The Common
wealth, through her officers, was here at the
feet of the United States Government, and
was brought here by political charatans.
Congress, however, had never made law
regulating elections in this State or any other
State, as many of the United States officers
seemed to think. We vote according to the
law of Virginia, and falling TO comply with
that, we have no right to vote at all. In
this case it was impossible to say that the
law Of Virginia was departed from. The
crime of the accused, if there is any,
Is that they conformed to the law
of Virginia. He could not believe that
the Commissioner would say that the law
which fitted the white man would not fit the
negro. The enforcement act only proposed
to give the negro equal rights with white
men, and nothing in this case had been done,
or omitted to be done TO the prejudice of any
because of race, color, or previous condi-
ton of serytude." Congress had manifest
cd much solicitude for the negro, and rightly,
too, for be ptied them, while he detested
many of their leaders. Not one of these afli-
dayits, framed by political leaders, conform
cd to the act Of COngress-in not one Of
them was it alleged that the officers omis-
sion was wrongful OMISSION"
The Commissioner: That's q very fine
point!
Mr.. Neeson: It is very substantial one.
Summing up his argument Mr.. NeeSon
contendcd that the law of Virginia must
govern this case, and he therefore asked that
the accused be discharged.
Mr.. Lewis, the District Attorney, arose to
close the argument for the prosecution, but
yielded to Judge Meredith to speak for the
accused.
Judge Meredith said the enforcement act
was not designed to cover the negroes alone,
but negroes aud whites alike. II was intend
ed only to uphold and maintain the rights
conferred by the State laws. Assuming that
the act was cOnstituti0nal-whi he was
inclined to doubt-this case came under its
third section, which sought to enforce the
State laws, and provides that il a voters
name has been wrongfulIy left oil the regis
tration books by doing certain things he may
place himself in position to exercise his
right OF suffrage. Most OF these men say
they were registered, or thought they were
registered; but that can only be legally
proved by the production OF the record.
The registration books is the only evidence
that can be used. This cuts the prosecution
up by the roots.
Tue affidavit confers no other right than
the right of voter to qualify himself If his
name has been wrongfully omitted from the
books. The judges were not bound to allo"
these men TO vote upon the production OF
the atfidavits; the man must first have COM
pied with the prerequisites OF the State Law
before the atidayits could be effective, and
he held that the affidavit is not an abs
lutte verify.
Mr.. l.. L. Lewis, the United States Di-trict
Attorney closed the argument. lie held that
there had been violation Of the State law In-
asmuch as the judges had not examined on
oath the persons who offered to vote, as pro-
vidcd in chapter s, section Is, OF the Code.
lie admitted that the enforcement act,
though passed to prevent fraud, mig ht oy
peryersion give rise to as mucn trauu as IL
was intended to prevent. The judge OF this
circuit had In the Maryland Gaze referred 10
decided that the act was constitutional ana
applied to all elections, and this was bis own
opinion. In his judgment the act OF Con-
erc,s must he declared imperative or the
accused must be held to have violated it, aud
the Judges, when the affidavit was produced
before them, ought to have received ii, taken
the voters ballot, and recorded his vote. nc
matter what may have been the intent OF the
Judges, they have omitted the performance
of a duty enioincd by the act OF Congress
The testimony didn'l show any fraudulent
intention, and he thought the act one O
omission, but criminal omission ncyerthe'
less.
Mr.. Lewis reviewed all the points made
by counsel for defence, and asked the Com
missioner to send the accused on. He, how
ever. saw no testimony to show corrupt oi
fraudulent purpose.
TIE COMMISSIONERS DECISION.
Mr.. Commissioner Pleasants said he had
no doubt it would be very wise thing 70
announce his decision without giving bis
reasons for so doing, for in nire cases out o
ten where an honest man means to DO right
be will do it; but in the same number OF
cases where he attempts 10 give bis reasons
he will give the wrong ones. Much that was
clearly irrelevant had been said in this eise,
,,d RI course he could not allow 1t TO