The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-04-03

better than the sixth and fourteenth. The |
intent here charged is to put the parties |
named 10 great fear Of bodily harm, and |
to injure and Cypress thom, because being
and having been in all things qualified !
they had voted AT an election before that
time, had and held according to law by
the people of the said state of Louisiana,
in said state, TO wit, on the fourth day of
November, A. ID. 1872, and at divers
other elections by the people of the state,
also before that time had and held accord
ing to law" There is nothing TO show
that the elections voted at were any other
than state elections, or that the con-
spiracy was formed on account of the race
OF the parties against whom the couspira-
tors were to act. The charge as made is
really OF nothing more than conspiracy to
commit breach Of the peace within state.
Certainly it will not be claimed that the
United States have the power or are re-
qured to do mere police duty in the
states. If state cannot protect itself
against domestic violence the United
States may, upon the call of the executive
when the legislature cannot be convened,
lend their assistance for that purpose
This is q guaranty of the constitution
tarticle 4, section A., but it applies to no
case like this We are, therefore of the
opinion that the first, second, third, fourth,
sixth, seventh, ninth tenth, eleventh,
twelfth, fourteenth and fifteenth counts do
not contain charges of a criminal nature
made indictable under the laws of the
United States and that consequently they
are not good and sufficient 10 law. They
do not show that it was the intent of the
defendants, by their conspiracy, to hinder
or prevent the enjoyment OF any right
granted or secured by the constitution.
vAGUENEss OF LANGUAGE.
We come now TO consider the fifth and
thirteenth and the eighth and sixteenth
counts, which may be brought together, for
that pJrpose. The intent charged in the
fifth and thirteenth is ITO hinder and pre-
vent the parties in their respective and free
exercise and enjoyment of the rights,
privileges, immuDities and protection
granted and secured TO them respectively
as citizens Of the United States and as
citizens of the said state OF Louisiana,"
for the reason that they, being then and
there citizens of said state, and of the
United States, we're persons of African
descent and race and persons OF color, and
not white citizens thereof, and in the
eighth and sixteenth to hinder and pre-
vent them in their several aud respective
free exercise and enjoyment of every, each,
all aud singular, the several rights and
privileges granted and secured to them by
the constitution and laws of the United
States. The same general statement of
the rights to be iuterfered with Is found
in the fifth aud thirteenth counts. Ac
cording to the view we take of these
counts the question is not whether it is
nuouuh in eyanaraI IN daSoriha
offense 10 the language of the statute, but
whether the offense has here been de-
scribed at all. The statute provides for
the punishment of those who conspire Ito
injure, threaten or intimidate any citizen
with intent to prevent or hinder his full
exercise and enjoyment of any right or
privilege granted or secured to him by the
constitution or the laws of the United
States. These counts in the indictment
charge in substance that the intent in this
case was TO hinder and prevent these citi
Zeus in the free exercise and enjoyment Of
every, each, all and singular. the rights
granted them by the constitution, &c
There Is no specification of any particular
right Tie language is broad enough Il
cover all. la criminal cases prosecuted
under the laws Of the United States the ac
cused has the constitutional right ito be in
formed OF the nature and cause of the accuse
ton amendment g. Id United State:
VS.. Mills, Pet. l42, this was construed t
mean that the indictment must set fortl
the offense with cearness ard all neces
sary certainty to apprise the accused q
the crime with which he stands charged.
And the United States VS.. Cooke, II
Wall, IA, that every ingredient of whc
the offence is composed must be accuratel
and clearly alleged" 1t is an elementar
principle of criminal pleading that wher
the definition OF an offence. whether it b
at common law, or by statute, inc ude
generic terms, it is not sufficient that tn
Indictment shall charge the offence in tn
same generic terms as in the definition, bu
it must state the species, it must descen
TO particulars" Il Arch, Or. Pr. and Z. !.
29l.) The object of the indictment is
first, 10 furnish the accused with such
description OF the charge against him a
will enable him to make his defence an
avail himself of his conviction or acquitta
for protection against Il further prosecu
ton tor the came cause; and second, {
inform the court o. the facts were alleged
so thDt it may decide whether they ar
sufficient in law to support a conviction,
one should be had. For this, facts are I
stated, not conclusions of law alone.
crime is made up of acts and intent; an
these must be set forth in the indictment
with reasonable particularly of time an
place aud circumstances 1t is a crime
steal goods and chattels, but an indictmer
would be bad that did not specify, wit
some degree OF certainty, the article
stolen. This because the accused must b
advised of the essential particulars of tn
charge against him, and the court must b
able to decide whether the property take
was such as was the Subject of Larceny
So, too 1t is in some states q crime for tW
or more persons TO conspire to cheat an
detraud another out of his property; BIT
it has been held that an indictment fC
such an offence must contain allegation
setting forth the means proposed to b
used to accomplish the purpose. This. b,
cause to make such purpose criuina
the conspiracy must be to cheat and d.
fraud in mode made criminal; it
necessary for the indictment to state tn
means proposed in order that the coul
may see that they are, in fact, illeg,
State VS.. Parker, 43 n. H., SO; State VI
Reach, 40 VT, 1l8: Alderman VS.. TIL
People, Mich, IA; State VS.. Roberts, 3
Maine, 32),
In Maine it is an offence for two or MOI
to conspire with the intent, unlawfully an
wickcdly, to commit any crime punishabl
by Imprisonment in the state prison (Stat
vs. Roberts) but we think it will hard
be claimed that an indictment would /