The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-03-28

and respective free exercise and enjoyment of every
each ali singular the several rights and privileges
granted and secured them by the constitution and
laws OF the United States. The same general statement
the rights be nteriered with found fh and
these counts the question is not whether rs enough
in general TO describe statutory offence in the lan-
guage Of the statute but whether the offence has here
been described at all The statute provides for the pun
shment OF those who conspire "to nlure, threaten or
ntmidae any citizen with intent to prevent hinder
his full exercise and enjoyment Of any right pryI-
legc granted secured to him by the constitution
or laws OF the United States" These counts in
the Indictment charge in substance that the
intent In this case was hinder ana
prevent these citizens IN the Tree exercise and enjoy
ment ofevery each all and singular the rights granted
them by the constitution, Acc There Is no specihc'
ton OF any particular right The language Is broad
enough TO cover all In criminal eases prosecuted
under the laws of the United states the accused has
the constitutional right to be informed OF the nature
and cause OF the accusation (Amendnent d. In
United States vs.. Mills I, Pet. l42, this con
strued to mean that the indictment must set forth tue
offence with clearness and all necessary certainty TO
apprise the accused OF the crime with which he
stands charged" And in United States vs. Cook, IL
Wall, ia "that every ingredient OF which the offence
Is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged
II is elementary principle OF criminal pleading that
where the definition OF an offence, whether 1t be at
common law, or by statute, incudes generic terms, IL
Is not sufficient that the Indictment snail charge tho
offence in the generic terms in the definition,
but it state the Species II descend to par
ticularsi' Il Arch Or Pr aud p L. 2gl) The object OF
the indictment is 1rs to furnish the with such
description of the charge against him will enable
him to make his defence and avail himself OF his con-
prosecution for the same cause; and second to INFORM
the Court of the facts alleged, that II
may decide whether they sufficient law
TO support convection II one should be had;
TO- this Facts TO be stated not conclusions Of
alone. A crime is mace up OF acts and intent and
these must be SGT forth IN the indict-
ment, with reasonable particularly OF time
and place and circumstances 1t is crime to
steal goods and chattels but an inoctment would DO
bad that did not specify With some degree OF
tainty, the articles stolen This because the
cused must be advised OF the essential particulars Of
be
10 decide whether the property taken was such
the subject of arccncy. SO, too 1t is IN States
crime Tor two or more persons 10 conspre TO cheat and
deiraud another out Of his property but 1t has been
held that an indictment for such an offence
must contain allegations setting forth the
means proposed TO be used TO accomplish
the purpose. This, because 10 make such u purpose
criminal the conspiracy must be 10 cheat and deraud
in mode made criminal; II Is necessary for the in
dicment TO state the means proposed order that the
court may see that they in fact, illegal Estate
Parker, 10 n. H., So State VS. Reach, 40 VI, lis;
Alderman vs.. The People, Mich, Ia Stale VS..
Roberts, "a Maine, 32l
In Name IL is an offence for two or more to conspre
with the intent, uniawiuy and wckedly 10 commit
any crime punishable by Imprisonment IN the State
Prison Estate Roberts), but we think 1t will hardly
DO claimed that an indictment would be good under
this statute which charged the object of the conspiracy
to have been unawiully and wickedly TO commit
each every all and singular the crimes punishable by
Imprisonment in the State Prison All crimes are not
so punishable. Whether particular crime be such an
one or not IS question oil law me accused has,
therefore, the right to have specification of the
charge against him in this respect IN order
that he may decide whether he should present
his defence by motion to quash, demurrer or
plea, and the Court that it may determine
whether the facts will sustain the indictment.
SO where the crime is made consist IN the unlawful
combination with an intent 10 prevent the endowment
Of any right granted secured by the constitution,
&c. All rights not so granted or secured Whether
Is not is question of law TO be decided by
the Court, not the prosecutor Therefore the ndct-
ment should state particulars to inform the Court as
well us the accused. 1t must be made to appear-that
is to say, appear from the indictment without going
furtherthat the acts charged will II proven support
a conviction Tor the offence alleged But ii is
needless TO pursue tho argument further The
conclusion Is irresistible that these counts
too vague and general. They lack the certainty and
precision required by the established rules of criminal
pleading. IL follows that they not good and sul
cicnt in law. They arc defective that no judgment
of conviction should be pronounced upon them. The
order of the Circuit Court arrcstng the judgment upon
the verdict is therefore, affirmed and the
mandcd, with Instructions to discharge the defend
ants.
Mr.. Justice Clifford dissented from the opinion but
concurred in the Judgment
THE KENTUCKY ELECTION CASE.
No. 145 The United states, plaintiffs VS.. Hiram
Reese and Matthew Fousbee in 10 the Circuit
Court OF the United States for the District OF Ken
tucky.-Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion
of the Court This case comes here by OF
division OF opinion between the Judges OF the Circuit
Court in the District OF Kentucky II presents in
dctment containing four counts under sections and
OF the May 81 1870 10 STAT 140 against two OF
the inspectors OF municipal election In the State of
Kentucky for refusing TO receive and count at such
election the OF William Garner. citizen OF the
United States OF African descent All the questions
general demurrers TO the several counts of the indct
ment in this Court. The United States abandon the
first and third counts, and expressly waive the consd
Grafton OF all claims not arising Qua CT the enforcement
OF the fifteenth amendment OF the constitution. After
TINS concession the principal question lett LOT consider
alton whether the act under which the indictment Is
found can be made effective Tor punishment of inspcc
tors of elections who refuse TO receive and count the
votes OF citizens of the United States having all the
qualifications OF voters because of their race color
previous condition of servtude IL Congress has not
declared an act done within state to be crime against
he o % rcnt aS
such UNITED States VS. Hudson. CTanch 81 - 1t IS
not claimed that there is any statute which reach
this unless IT be the one In question. Looking
then to this statute we find its nrst section pro-
vdes that all citizens OF the United States who
aS tn vo sns onv escep qusnea
bc entitled and allowed to vote thercat without dis.
tncon of race, color or previous condition OF servi
tudc, any constitution &C. Of the State notwihstand
ing THIS simply declares the right without providing
punishment Tor its violation. The second section pro-
vdos for the punishment OF any officer charged with
the duty OF furnishing citizens opportunity to
perform any act which, by the constitution and laws
OF any State is made prerequisite or qualification Of
voting, who shall omit to give all citizens Of the
United States the same and equal opportunity to per-
form such prerequisite aud become qualified on ac-
count OF race, color or previous condition OF
servitude OF the applicant This does not apply TO
include the inspectors OF an election, whose only duty
it is to receive and count the votes OF citizens desg
mated by law as voters, who have already become
qualified TO vote at the election The third section
TO the effect that whenever by under the constiu
ton or laws OF any state &c any act is or shall be re-
qured to be done by any citizen a prerequisite to
quality or entte HIM TO vote, the offer of such citizen
to perform the act required TO be done, aforesaid,
SHALL II IL tail TO be carried into execution by OF
wrongful act or omission, aforesaid, of the per-
officer charged with the duty OF
receiving or permitting such performance,
or offer TO perform or acting thereon, DO
deemed and held a performance in law OF such
act, and the person so Offering and failing, afore-
said and being otherwise qualified shall be entitled to
vote in the same manner and to the extent N
ho had in fact performed such act and any Judge i'm
spector other officer OF election whose duty Is
receive, count &C. to give effect the vote of any
such citizen who shall wrongfully refuse,
omit 10 receive, &c, the vote OF such
citizen upon representation by him of his affidavit
stating such offer. and the time and place thereof and
the name OF the person officer whose duty was
act thereon, and that he wrongully prevented by
such person or officer from performing such act
shall, Tor every such offence, ierfet and pay, &c
The fourth section provides Tor the punishment OF any
person who snail by force bribery, threats intimida-
ton OF other unlawful means hinder, delay, &c, or
shall combine with others to hinder delay, prevent
obstruct any citizen from doing any act required be
Lnnn 10 nnallly him 10 from. a...