The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-04-24

States that "the first section of the act
entitled an act defining additional causes
of challenge and prescribing an addi'
tional oath for grand and petit jurors in
the United States Court, approved June
II, 1872, be, and the same is, hereby re.
pealed." There is no doubt that in 1871
at the time when this act was passed.
Section 800 of the Revised Statutes OF
the United States was no part of the laws
of the United States. In the case OF
Doyle against Wisconsin, 81, U. S. Re-
ports, 81, 4th Otto, the Supreme Court
says: "The Revised Statutes are a re-
vision and consolidation of the old Stat
utes rather than the enactment of new"
Section $500 provides that "the arrange
ment and classification of the several
sections Of the revision have been made
for the purpose of more convenient and
orderly arrangement of the same, and,
therefore, no inference or presumption
of legislative construction is to be
drawn by reason of the title, under which
any particular section is placed" n
"This makes it proper that we should
look to the original act to ascertain the
legislative intent in case of doubt"
THE REVISED STATUTES NOT LAW, ONLY
EVIDENCE OF LAW.
Your Honor is aware that I now state
upon unquestionable authority that the
second edition of the Revised Statutes of
the United States is not held to be conclu-
sive evidence of what are the laws of the
United States. And in this connection /
would also refer your Honors to the fact
that in the second edition of the Revised
Statutes, Section 5,595 declares that "The
| foregoing seventy-three titles embrace
the Statues of the United States, gene
raj and permanent in their nature, in
force the lst December, 1878, as revised
and consolidated by commissioners ap-
pointed under an act of Congress, and
the same shall be designated and cited
as the Revised Statutes of the United
States"
Judge Bond: Certainly it is not con-
elusive evidence, but it is prima .tacie ev-
ideuce. Up to the first revision all an
tecedent statutes were repealed, and all
the laws of the United States were re-
enacted in that first revision of the stat
utes.
| Judge Magrath: But your Honor will
not hold that section which was not q
law of the United States, and may have
found its way into the first revision, would
be thereby law, because it is now found
in the second revision?
Judge Bond: But it was law in the
first revision. II was repealed, re-enact-
ed in the first Revised Statutes, and then
became part of the second revision.
Judge Magrath: submit that the
question of whether it was made law in
the first Revised Statutes depends upon
whether it was an existing law of the
United States at the time of this first re-
vision.
Judge Bond: No it don't.
Judge Magrath: According 70 the rul-
ing of the Supreme Court your Honors
are not bound to accept this section as
law simply because it is in this book.
Holding therefore that this Section (S20)
is not Of force, 1 submit that while the
cause of challenge is repealed by the re-
peal of the section, it would appear as if
the Congress of the United States did
not intend to take away altogether the
protection intended to be afforded by
Section 800, and left standing as law
Section S2l, but with this special safe
guard attached: That it should not be
in the power of the district-attorney at his
pleasure to dictate would should or should
not be the disqualification of q juror, but
that this test could only be applied when
it seemed proper in the wise discretion of
the court. And it is easy to see why
Congress would submit to your Honor's
wise discretion that privilege which it
would withhold absolutely from its pros
ecuting officer. I submit, therefore, that
the cause of challenge as found in Sec
ton 500, is not of force, and that it is not
within the power of the district-attorney
to apply that test, and that without the
permission of the Court it cannot be ap-
piled.
Judge Bond: This
ARGUMENT CAN'T GO on FOREVER.
This question was decided yesterday.
If this section is repealed then l think
we should at once inform Congress Of that
fact, because they have been trying to
repeal this very section for the last six
weeks. The act says that inability to
take this oath will act as disqualifica-
ton, and is worse than an objection. If
each of these nine gentlemen who have
been excluded had said that they were
not 81 years of age it would have dis
qualified them. If it turns out that this
grand jury has anybody on it who, with
out coercion, gave aid and comfort to the
Confederacy, l am satisfied that no bill
can be found against any person by this
grand jury who has not been bound over
BY q United States commissioner to ap-
pear before this Court and who has not
had the right and opportunity to exam
inc the array. This is a distinct disqual-
ifcation, and while I am very sorry to
lose the company of these gentlemen, yet
1 must ask them to retire, that their
places may be filled de circumstanti6us.
The district attorney said, with some
alarm: May it please the Court, if we
are not too late, we had better find out
about the grand jury. We did not put
the oath to them.
Judge Bond: But it is too late. We
will take matters as they come.
The order summoning nine additional
Jurors was then signed, and the marshal
selected the following persons: Smith
Howe, (white,) Charleston County
James Duggan, white Charleston City
Fl. w. Purvis, (colored,) Charleston City
Geo. w. Youninger, (white, Lexington
Francis Cooke, white city; James Bar.
ry, (white, city; A. E. Philippy, (white,l
city; F. NJ. Johnstone, (white,) city.
RULE AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF
STATE.
The assistant district attorney stated
to the Court that he had issued su6pp
ma duces tecun, to the secretary of State tc
bring with him from his office at Coum
bia certain poll lists on file there. Tha
the secretary of State had failed to obey
the subphGna, and he desired rule t.
issue against him to show cause why hi
should not be attached.
The rule was issued.