National Republican., 1876-03-28

becsuse, being snd having been In all thlngs
qualified, they had voted eat an election Do
lore that time haa ssa d s.s,s In,sso, N
ssio State, 10 wit, on the 4th osv OF November,
A. D. 1872 and at divers other elections oJ ths
people OF the State. also before that time had and
There IL nothing to show tha. the elections
voted at we're aoy oIbe' than State elections, or
"a co OF the parties against whom the conspifi-
tors were to act. The charge as made ls really
OF nothing more than conspiracy to oommh Q
br each Of he peace within . State. Certainly IL
will not be claimed that the United States have
the power, or are required TO DO mere police
Soy In s,S,. tns s ssms.is vIoisess the GSisd
States may, upon the call OF the Executive,
when the Legislature :annot be convened, lend
guaranty OF the Constitution, tart. II, section
~ but It applies to no case like this.
We are, therefore, Of tho opinion that the frat,
tenth, eleventh, twelfth, fourteenth and ffteenth
counts do net contain charges Of Q criminal
psture made inSic,sSle under ,ne laws 80 Of the
not good and sufficient In law. They do not
show that IL was the intent Of the defendants by
mept Of any right granted Or secured By the
We come now to consider the hth and thir-
teenth and the eighth and sixteenth counts,
which may be brought together for the purpose.
The intent charged In the hfth and thirteenth Is
ITO binder and prevent the parties In their re-
privileges, immunities ana protection granted
and secured TO them respectively as citizsns Of
Of Louisiana" "for the reason that they,
beips then and there citizens OF said State and of
the United States, were persons Of African de-
white citlzens thereof" and In the eighth and
sixteenth, to hinder and prevent them "in their
several and respective free exercise and enjoy.
ment Of every, each, all and sing the several
rig hts and prtvtlege granted and secured 70 them
by the Constitution and laws Of the United
States;" The same general statement % Of The
and thirteenth counts.
According to the Wow We take Of the counts
the question is not whether It 10 enough, in
general, to describe o statutory ofense 10 the
lar guage Of the statute, but whether the ofense
has here been described at all. The statute pro-
yides for the punishment Of those who consplre
ITO irJuIe, oppress, threaten or tntimidate any
citizen, with intent to prevent hinder his free
exercise and enjoyment Of any right or privilege
granted or secured TO him by the Constitution or
laws Of the United States" These counts 10 the
Indictment charge, In substance, that the intent
Zeus In the free exercise and pjoyment OF every
each, all and singular" the rights granted them
by the Constitution, sc. There is no sp,cifca-
tion of any particular right. The language 10
broad enough to cover all.
In criminal cases, prosecuted under the laws
OF the United States, the accused has the consti-
tuiionsl right ito be informed Of the nature and
cause of the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. VI In
United States vs.. Mills, Pet, 142 this was con-
strued to mean that the indictment must forth
the oftnse with clearDess and all necessary GER
taiDty, TO apprise the accused of the crime with
which he sta2ds charged;" and in United States
vs. Cock, II Wall, Ia that "every Ingredient of
which the otfense ia composed must be accurately
and clearly alleged" l. Is an elementary prIn-
cIple of criminal pleading that where the dsfni-
tion of an otfense, whether it be at common law
or by statute, "includes generic terms, it is not
sufficient that the Indictment shall charge the
ofeIse in the same gensrio terms as In the defni-
tiOp, but IL must state the species-it must de-
srend TO particulars. "a Arch. Or. Pr. and PL,
:e1.)
Tne object of the indictment is, first, to furnish
the accused with such description Of the charge
az ainst him as will enable hin to make his de-
fense, and avail himself Of his conviction or ac-
quittal Tor protection against a further prosecu-
tlon for the same cause; and, second, to inform
the court Of the facts alleged, that IL may dc.
eide whether they are sufficient IL law to support
q conviction, Il one should be had. For this
facts are to be stated, not conclusions of law
alone. A crime is made up of acts and intent,
and these must % SET iorth IN the Indictment,
with reasonable Particularly OF time, place and
circumstances.
IL is q crime TO stIal goods and chattels, but an
Indictment ould be bad that did not spec fly with
some degree OF certainty the articles stolen.
This because the accused must be advised Of the
essential particulars OF the charge against him,
and the court must be able to decide whether the
property taken was such as was the subject of
larceny. So, too, Il is in some States crime for
two or three persons to conspIre TO cheat and de-
fraud another out of his property, but it has bsen
held that an indictment for such ohense mus,
contain alleg ationS setting forth the means pro-
posed to be used to accomplish the purpose. This
because 10 make such purpose criminal, the
conspiracy must be to cheat and defraud In q
MODE made criminal by statute, and all ch sat-
ing and tefraudiDg has not been mado criminal,
IL is Lecessary for the indictment TO state the
means proposed in order that the court may see
that they are in fact illegal: Estate We. Parker,
i3 n. H, So: State vs.. keach, 40 w. lis; Alder
man VS.. The People, Mich, ili; State w.
Roberts, 81 Maine, S2.l
In Maine It is an ofense fc- two or more to
conspire with the intent uRlawfclIy and wlck-
edly 10 commit any crime punishable by i'm prIs.
onment in the State prison, (Ststs vs.. Roberts,)
Indictment S would be GOOD under this ststute sn
which charges the object Of the conspiracy to
have been "unlswfully and wickedly to commit
able BY imprisonment In tho State prison" All
crimes arc not so punishable. Whether q par
ticuar crime be such an one or not Is q que 'tion
oilaw. The accused has, tn erefOre, the right to
have q specification Of the charge ag linst him In
this respect fn order that he may decide whether
he should presen his defense BY motion to qussh,
demurrer or plea, and the court, that IL may de-
termine whether the facts will sustain the indict-
ment. So here the crime is made 10 consist 10 the
unlawful combination with an intent to prevent
the enjoy yment Of any right granted or secured
oy the Constitution, &c. All rights are not
so granted or secured
Whether one is 90 or rot Is question OF law 70
be decided by the COURT not the prosecutor.
Therefore the Indictment should state the par
ticulars, to inform the court as we'll as the &C.
cused. 1t must be made to appear, that Is to say,
appear fIom the indictment without going fur
ther, that the acts charged will, IL proven, sup
port conviction for the ofense alleged.
But Il Is needless to pursue the argument fur
ther. The conclusion Is irresistible that these
counts are too vague and general. They lack
the certainty and precision required BY tho es-
that they are not good and sufficient in law.
They are go defective that no judgment OF con.
yiction should be pronounced upon them
The order of the Circuit Court arresting the
iudg ment upon the verdict is, therefore, affirmed
and the cause remanded with Instructions TO dis
charge the defendants.
Mr. Justice Clifford disssnted from the opinion
but ccncurred in the Judgment.