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

~HS .eNs va - pm ~ lOI IL WIS Up
ciared by the Congress Of the Unite,
States that "the first section of the nc
entitled an act defining additional cause
OF challenge and prescribing an addi
tonal oath Tor grand and petit jurors il
the United States Court, approved Jun
II, 1872, be, and the same is, hereby re
pcalcd." There is no doubt that in ISL
at the time when this act was passed
Section $50 of the Revised Statutes O
the United States was no part of the law
of the United States. In the case O
Doyle against Wisconsin, 81, u. S. Re
ports, 81. 4th Otto, the Supreme Cour
says: The Revised Statutes are n re
vision and consolidation of the old Stat
utcs rather than the enactment Of new.
Section 5000 provides that "thc arrange
ment and classification of the severa
sections of the revision have been mad,
Tor the purpose of q more convenient anc
orderly arrangement of the same. and
therefore, no inference or presumption
of legislative construction is 70 be
drawn by reason Of tne title, under which
any particular section is placed" }
"This makes it proper that we should
look to the original act to ascertain the
legislative intent in case of doubt"
IiiE REVISED STATUTES NOT LAW, ONLY
/ EVIDENCE OF LAW.
| Your Honor is aware that now state
upon unquestionable authority that the
second edition of the Revised Statutes OF
the United States is not held to be concu.
slve evidence of what are the laws of the
( United States. And in this connection |
would also refer your Uonors to the fact
that in the second edition of the Revised
Statutes, Section 1895 declares that "The
foregoing sevcnty-three titles embrace
the Statues of the United States, gene.
raj and permanent in their nature. in
iorce the 1st December, 1873, rs revised
and consolidated by commissioners ap-
pointed under an act of Congress, and
the same shall be designated and cited
rs the Revised Statutes of the United
States"
Judge Bond: Certainly it is not con-
elusive evidence, but it is 7rima tacie cy-
idence. Up to the first revision all an
tecedent statutes were repealed, and all
the laws of the United States we're re-
enacted in that first revision of the stat
utes.
Judge Magrath: But your Honor will
not hold that section which was not n
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 Bend: Bat il was law in the
first revision. 1t was repealed, rc-enact-
ed in the first Revised Statutes, and then
became part of the second revision.
Judge Magrath l 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 to the rul-
ing OF the Supreme Court your Honors
are not bound to accept this section rs
law simply because it is in this book.
Holding therefore that this Section (S2O)
is not of force, l submit that while the
cause of challenge is repealed by the re-
peal OF the section, it would appear rs if
the Congress Of the United States did
not intend to take away altogether the
protection intended TO be afforded by
Section $50, and left standing as law
Section 82l, but with this special safe
guard attached: That il should not be
III the power ofthe distrct-attorney Mt his
pleasure to dictate would should or should
not be the disqualification of Juror but
that this test could only be applied when
it seemed proper in the wise discretion of
tue 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.
eculing officer. submit, therefore, that
the cause Of challenge as found in Sec
ton $40, 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 think
we should at once inform Congress ofthat
fact, because they have been trying tc
repeal this very section for the last six
weeks. The act says that inability to
take this oath will act as a disqualifica-
tion, and is worse than an objection. If
each of these nine gentlemen who have
been excluded had said that they were
not 2l 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 10 the
Confederacy, am satisfied that no bill
can be iouiid against any person BY this
grand jury who has not been bound over
by 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 distinct disoual-
ifcation, and while l am very sorry to
lose the company OF these gentlemen, vet
l must ask them to retire, that their
places may be filled de circumstdntibus.
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
seiecict; the :fo!!u.wing Tcssons: S.n;.!,
Howe, (whitc,) Charleston County
James Duggan. (white,) Charleston City
II. w. Purvis, (colored, Charleston City
Geo. W. Youninger, (white,) Lexington
Francis Cooke, (white,) city James Bar
ry, (white,) city; a. E. Philippy, white, J
city; +. NJ. Johnstone, (white, city.
RULE AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF
STATE.
The assistant district attorney stated
&c the Court that he had issued sadpe
no duccs fecum to the secretary of State to
bring with him from his office at Colum.
bia certain poll lists on file there. That
the secretary Of State had failed to obey
the subphGna, and he desired q rule tc
issue against him to show cause why he
should not be attached.
The rule was issued.