The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-07

day after the first Monday IN November, 1873,
there to be held according to law, ut which
eaid election a member OF Congress- for said
Fourth Congressional District was to be
chosen,
This count after averring the breaking and
entering of the house OF Blunt and the taking
ants, charges that the defendants ordered
him to abstain from the advocacy OF the
election Of said Wells, and to abstain from
all political meetings and matters ana dld
order him to leave and remain away from
said parish of Natchitoches, and by threats
OF bodily harm and death, compelled him to
obey said illegal order, and to abandon all
| advocacy and support of said Wells, candi-
date for Congress, as aforesaid, and to leave
| and remain away from said parish.
Such gentlemen, Is n condensed statement
| Of the accusations brought by the United
| States against these defendants, and to these
| accusations all the defendants ON trial have
! interpoSed the plea of not guilty.
| There are two rules Of law applicable to all
| criminal cases to which wish In the outset
| to call your attention. The first Of these Is,
that when the defendants plead not guilty,
| as in this case, all presumptions OF law, inde-
pendendent of the evidence, are In favor Of
| innocence and every person Is presumed to
be innocent until his guilt Is legally estab-
| lshed In other words the burden OF proof
| is on the prosecution to make evident the
guilt OF defendants, and if the proof falls to
| do this the defendants are entitled to acquit-
| tai.
| The second rule u.s. that the guilt OF the
| accused must be- established by the evidence
beyond reasonable doubt, before u jury
would be justified in u returning verdict OF
guilty.
'The term reasonable doubt is one often
used, pretty well understood, but not easily
defined. 1t Is not mere possible doubt, be-
cause everything relating to human affairs
and depending on moral evidence is open to
some possible or imaginary doubt. lt Is
| that state of the case which, after the entire
u tt.xrn y fnll flana
evidence, leaves the minds OF the jurors In
that condition that they cannot say they feel
| an abiding conviction to a moral certainty OF
the truth of the charge. III upon such proof
there is reasonable doubt remaining, the ac-
| cusel Is entitled to the benefit OF 1t by an ac-
uuittal The evidence must establish the
| truth of the fact to a reasonable and
moral certainty; certainty that CON
yinceS and directs the understanding,
aud satisfies the reason and Judgment
OF those who are bound to act con-
scientiously upon it. This Is proof beyond
reasonable doubt, because II the law, which
depends mostly on considerations OF moral
nature, should go further than this, and re-
uuire absolute certainty, 1t would exclude cir
cumstantial evidence altogether" Chief JUS
tice Shaw In Commonwealth VS.. Webster, s
CuSh., 800.
Keeping In mind these rules Of the Grim
final law, you Will proceed 10 the lnVeSblga-
The offense with which the defendants are
charged in all the counts OF the Indictment is
conspiracy.
The gst of this offense is the unlawful
| agreement though nothing be done in prose
cution OF it. Thus, IL two or more persons
combine together to do an unlawful act, and
before they take any steps to accomplish
their unlawful purpose are arrested or other-
wise prevented from carrying out their de-
sign, nevertheless the Ol1enSe Oh conspiracy
is complete.
The evidence In support OF an indictment
for conspiracy Is generally circumstantial
and it is not necessary to prove any direct
| concert or even any meeting OF the con5pira
tors as the actual fact Of the conspiracy may
be collected from the collateral circumstances
! of the case. Although the design Is the root
OF the charge, yet it is not necessary to prove
that the defendants came together and ae,
tl!ally agreed In terms to have common de.
| sign and pursue it by common means, and sc
carry it into execution, because in many cases
OF the most clearly established cOnSpiracies
there are no means Of proving any such thing
! If, therefore, two or more persons pursue by
their acts the same biectS often by the same
: means, one performing one part OF an act
, and the other another part OF the same act
50 as to complete it with view to the attain
ment Of the object they were pursuing, the
! jury are at liberty to draw the conclusion that
they have been engaged in conspiracy tc
effect that object.
Russell on Grimes, vol. l, page 698, and au.
thoritie5 there cited.
ANY person concerned III any Oh Inc CEII1lHd
parts OF the transaction alleged as conSpir-
acy may be found guilty, though there be nc
evidence that such persons joined in concert
ing the plan. or that they ever met the others
and though 1t is probable they never did, anc
although some OF them only Joined In the lat
ter parts of the transaction, and probably die
| not know of the matter until some OF tht
) prior parts of the transaction were complete
, SO that il several persons meet from different
: motives and then join in effecting one com
mon and illegal object, 1t Is conspiracy
Idem, page 500.
The charge against the defendants in thu
first two counts of the indictment, as you
, have already seen, is, that they cOnspired t.
prevent, by force, intimidation and threats
A. r. Blunt, and others unknown TO the granc
jury, from supporting and advocating thu
election OF J. Madison Wells as member o
, Congress, ne being an eligible candidate, ant
Blunt and others being entitled by law tt
vote, and that TO effect their said purpose the
: defendants surrounded and broke into thu
house of said Blunt, unlawfully and forcibly
, took him therefrom, and by threats OF In
fiictng on him great bodily harm, and eyel
death, compelled him to leave and remain
! absent from the parish OF Natchitoches, wher
, he lived.
The third count charges conspiracy b,
. the defendants to njure Blunt and others il
their persons and property, on account 0
their advocacy and support given in favor 0
the election Of Wells to the Congress OF tn
| United States.
The fourth count charges a conspiracy b
I injure, oppress, threaten and intimidat
3 Blunt and others In the free exercise and Ell
jOyment of their rights under the constitu
! ton and laws of the United States, to Civ
: their support and advocacy in favor Of Well
l as a candidate for the Congress Of the Unite
: States, and that in furtherance of the cor
/, spiracy Blunt was forcibly taken from hi
!, own house and by threats compelled to leav
the parish where he lived.
: In order to sustain the counts OF the ind1ct
4 ment it is necessary for the prosecution t
e show:
/ That A. r. Blunt was lawfully entitled t
a vote in the parish of Natchitoches for mem
4 Der OF Congress at the election III November
t 1878. a.
t office of member OF the Congress OF the ohiIe
d States. 49,. oo,
That the defendants, or some OF them, con
q spired with each other to prevent Blunt au'
other persons, TO the grand Jurors unhno"h Il
from giving their support ana adpocdhey ah..r = =
d favor of the election of Wells as LneInDea :, =
Il Congress, or to iniure, oppre5s, threaten an