The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-02-25
THE NATCHITOCHES PRISONERS.
THE CASE UP BEFORE JUDGE WOODS
YESTERDAY,
Jury IL Rmpaneled After n Tedious
Examination and the Trial Of the
Case started.

Case started.
The celebrated case of the Natchitoches pris-
oners was on trial before Judge Woods Of the
United States Circuit Court yesterday. A dense
mass OF the curious thronged the lobby and the
court-room to watch the progress OF the case.
The prisoners are. II will be remembered. ac-
cused of having conspired In the parish OF
Eatchitoches to prevent, by force and ntimida-
tlon. one A. 7. Blount and others from giving
their support to elect J. Mad Wells to Congress
as Representative of the Fourth Congressional
District OF Louisiana. The following are the
accused parties:
Milton j. CUNNINGHAM. James. II. Coagrove,
Charles Levy: William Jaiki s James Gennes'
Porter. John M. Tucker James Tucker. John
q. Genoe, Jamrs w. Little, Richard Flemmi iug,
eio William Tremmeli Samuel Hynes Charles
Payne Joseph Stevens, Marshall -. Glare. Will
liam M. Levy. David Pierson. Luci9s Jack.
err, John A. Barlow. James 7. King. Samuel
Hyams. Joseph Gharievilla. ,Alphcuse Prud
oyeton B5azeas 5acs Qha
OATH Emile Cloutier. Jules Bretel. Seymour
Curtis. David Blackshear. +. Prudhom,me, Jr..
Jud O. Twitchell. A. V. Carter Charles Hamiin.
fucker. \. i. ,gappbell; II Flanp'er, A Z.
heelSWy Rneds pesd 7 Gilfris; Bleazee u Deb
Tho roll of the prisoners was called; four
Sere found TO be absent and one out on bond.
Witnesses for the prosecution we're called.
The court asked II the parties we're ready for
trial. Mr. Beck with. of counsel for the defense.
announced that he was ready, and moved that
the panel of the pettit jury be called. This was
done, and out of 27o jurors only 80 answered to
their Names
Mr.. Beckwith moved the issuance of attach
ments against the absentees on the Jury list
but Judge Woods ruled that 1t was not the
practice Of the courts to expect always full
attendance Of the panel. as some OF the jurors
might be sick or absent from unavoidable
cause. However. the court remarked. when
The present roll shall have been exhausted
atachments could be issued against absentees.
The selection OF Jurors was then proceeded
with.
J,W. Keller (colored) was the first called. He
said he resides on Fourth street. Has served as
iuror within the last two years. Challenged for
w ii. Seymour was next brought forward
Witness has not formed an opinion about the
essA Is twenty four ears old. Was not fn the
Confederate service during the war. because
hewas little boy at that tipe. Could not SAY say
The war. Accepted as Juror.
A. G, Bartlette was called. Juror resides at
us Congress street; has formed no opinion
about the case. Came from New York to this
city In 1865 Was in the Federal army. Accepted.
The District Attorney moved that the defense
b required TO accept Jurors when presented. s ,e
was not the practice Of the courts that defend
ants need not exercise their right to challenge
until twelve men were In the box. :,..,o =, 49,.
district attorney, who then moved that ten
more jurors be called.
Max Braun was put on the stand. Juror
could take the test oath. Never expressed any
opinion about the case. Accepted, ,
r. Lambert was called. Juror was in the
Confederate service
Mr.. Lambert was challenged by the prosecu-
unn under the test oath.
Judge Egan objected to this challenge. and
asked that as a test case to settle the matter.
that the oath be submitted.
oath the question could be put TO him without
administering the test oath.
Mr.. Lambert WAS then asked If he willingly
engaged In the late war as a Confederate soldier.
and he answered In the affirmative. .
Judge Egan then arose aud spoke on the
question of juror being disqualified from SER
yee In not swearing 10 the test oath.
The Judge said:
the fact OF person having been engaged In
ne late rebellion is no ground for disduaIif,a "a;
| ION as a juror. Section $40 of the Revised
Matutes OF the United States is unconstitu-
a0nal, for two reasons:
4 First-It violates the provisions Of the consti-
tuton OF the United States. which entities
every citizen to an impartial trial. That act ex-
sympathize1 with or aided the late rebellion. /
sdmt that Congress has the power to pass a
TS,
ldeny that Congress has right to pass a law
dsoualifying such great number OF people,
ier It is well known fac that almost all men OF
tie South participated In the rebellion This
law therefore excludes the people OF this ttate
and other States from sitting as Jurors. and it
violates the constitutional provisions of trial by
Lord Bacon. as cited by Crawford on Jury
rial with regard to the right OF the King In ex
empting from jury service. says that the King
cannot exem pt whole county or even 100 men
from jury service. for in such cases there
would be failure OF justice. rs no Impartial
sr1al could be enjoyed. Theretore. II the Ming
bad not such a power. how could Congress
have 1t In its limited province Of legislation;
The law might cay as well tn It no man could
st on jury who was Democrat: ,,u.,o,
These prisoners have right 10 lmpartlal
Eial; the officers of the State. memperS o. oon-
sress. United States Senators the districa ai1r ,
oe5 nTse are seeopS 20 sround Of OBJ
ecion to the test oath is that its enforcement Is
aotIl Of attainder and violates the constltnlhpn
me United States. by punisninR an nn
out trial. To prevent party from sitting on
pary when his Ieer is arraigned Is 10 a''ain'
In the case Of Cummings VS.. the State OF
Missouri. wherein the test oath was applied.
NeSupreme Court of the United s ates decide9
Ia its enforcement was bill Of atfainaeI aIn
punishment. For the exclusion Oh Of ,t etr.aIn aan
asSs wass OF people from bay service. Wllnout con-
nction. Is bill of attainder."
JUDGE WOODS.
& u u answer TO Judge Egan's argument, salu:
have already held in other cases the test
galn to be constitutional and 1t Is not Tor me 70
asclde the CONSTITUTIONAL OF an act oI Coh- ,n
efess after hearing an argument hurriedly
made. II has been the law for NUMBER OF
saears. and am. therefore, disposed to overrule
Ee objection at present: but If it be necer say
..s:seafter In the progress of the case the point
tog talgnt be raised and deliberately argued; sec
son SO Is part of the law of the land. true II
go - q one time repealed. but congress3oMnai M
IN ~ mittee which was appointed to revise tns
stMs sMM inserted that section in the Revised
sssasIutes which. as bDdy, passed both houses
10 received Executive sanction. 1t might have
@ s7sn inserted by inadvertance. but as long as u
III. upon the statutes IL is my duty TO sus,
saAa u Inc objection is. therefore, overraled.