The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-12
for Representative in the Congress Of the

as such and did neglect and refuse to count 400
ballots esst at said electi2n y duly qqadiihed
| Wells for member Of Congress for the United
| States.
| AS to this second count / say to you, II there
Is any evidence at all In support OF 7 l. is ln-
sufficient to prove the allegation. and IL Is your
duty therefore. to render verdict OIL moi guilty
| You will therefore address yourselves to the
consideration of the question: whether az nbt
log the guilt Of the accused upon the hrsC count
| of the Indictment.
The presumption Of law Is, and you VII bear
| II In mind. that the defendants are Innocent
until 1t Ia satisfactorily established that they
| are guilty; and guilt cannot be satisfactorily
shown unless 1t Is proved beyond reasohaoie
doubt.
What is the charge brought against these. de-
| PENDANTS upon the first count? Ii 1s tbat tney
| did not act unauthorized by law. with q view
and purpose of affecting the result 81 the cleo
| ton for member In Congress OF tho Fourth
| Congressional District OF Louisiana.
| instruct you that Congress has no power to
punish a State officer for violation ~ state
law II II only effects the election OF state par
ish ward officers, and that section 5515 OF the
| statutes of the United States does not under.
take to punish State officers for violation OF
State law so far as such violation only afiects
the election or, the result Of the election OF
That section t5515) declares that every officer
Of an election Of which any delegate or repre-
4 sentative In Congress IL voted for. whether
such officer be appointed or created by Or IN
der any law or authority Of the United States
| Territorial. district ormunicipal law or author
| ity, who neglects or refuses TO perform any
DUTY In regard to the said election REQUIRED OF
| him by any law of the United States or of any
| State or Terri CRY thereof. or who violates any
dBty 50 mpossd. or who knowingly does an,
| net thereby unauthorized. with intent to Affect
| any such election. or the result thereof, or who
| frauduently makes any false certificates OF the
result Of such election In regard to such repre-
| sentative or delegate. or who neglects, with.
holds, conceals or destroys any certificate OF
record 50 required by law respecting the cleo
| ton of any such representative or delegate. or
1 Oppppta N make
| certificate as required by law; or who aids
| counsels, procures or advises any voter. per
son or officer to do any oct by this or any oil the
| preceding sections Of this act made criminal
or to emit 10 do any duty the omission Of which
| Is by this or any preceding section OF this act
| made criminal, snail be punished as prescribed
| by section b5l1 Of this act"
1t Is clear that the purpose of this law was
| only to punish violation Of tho Stae regult-
| tions. so far as such regulations affected the
| election or result Of the election OF member
| In Congress. and no further
| Now. rs to the charge against these defend
ants under the first count The State law re-
quires or authorizes the use Of one, or at most
| of not more than two III bal0t-bOxes. 1t is
charged that Of the general election held on the
| fifth OF November last these defendants with
the intent to. affect the result Of ~ election for
Representative In Congress held on that day,
| employed three 49, baliot-boXes and required
that all votes for members Of Congress should
parish officers and members Of the State Legs-
/ lature should be deposited In another box and
| that the votes for ward officers should be de-
/
that any votes for member OF Congress which
might be deposited In q box designated for
h g6ad bs coane And TT
alleged. under this first count, That the OBJ
| ieet Of the defendants In this matter was to af-
/ feet the election the result of the election for
member OF Congress.
The first question for your determinatio is
tie defendants In this Indictment conmited BY
| them. There Is no dispute between the counsel
| for the prosecution and the cousel for the de.
| that three boxes were used at the elections held
In o. Gsdd2 Az parish Ct tn, th9 precinct named
| A question OF law arises here: and 1t Is
whether or not three ballot-boxes were or were
not authorized to be used by the law OF this
State II seems that on the tenth day OF April,
1877. m act was approved by the Governor OF
| this State, providing. among other things, for
the electio OF justices Of the peace and oonsta-
\ bes. and on the eleventh OF April, 1SI7-the
next day-an act wa. approved which provided
for the election Of the various State office s, and
and this act ended by repeating all laws on the
subject Of elections excepting those relating to
Under the view that I take of this case it is
| immateria whelher the act Of the tenth Of
April. 1877, is In force or not Whether or not it
was repealed by the net approved next day is
not important
Ny Judgment Is. that the State of Louisiana.
by the act Of Atril II. 1877. did not authorize
of a SO parate ballot-bOx for state officers aud
parish officers, and another ballot-box for
. members OF Congress.
Section of the act OF April IL, 1877. declares:
That the election Of members Of the General
Assembly shall be held on the first Tuesday
after the first Monday In November"
Section 3 provides that all other officers, the
time and place Of whose election Is not other
wise provided for by law, shall be elected at the
time and place provided for the election of
Senators aud Representatives. Section de-
clares that oil general elections for Representa-
tives in Congress shall be conducted la the
same manner rs elections for Representatives
to the General Assembly:
Now. this act you will see provides for the
election, as have already stated for twenty
two members Of the General Assembly and
other State officers. and members of Congress.
Section twenythree OF the same act declares
that ali the!names Of persons voted for shall be
written or printed on one ticket, and that the
names Of the persons aud Office voted for shall
be accurately printed or written on the tickets
If this law is followed 1t Is impracicable that
there should be two ballot boxes, one for parish
officers and members of the Legislature and
the other for members Of Congress-. In my
judgment these commissioners were not In any
event authorized under the law OF the State TO
employ more than two ball ot-boxes for ward
State and parish officers and members OF Con-
gress think that o fair construction OF act
No. SO of 1877 shows that the use of one box for
the reception OF ballots for parish officers and
members of the Legislature and one for ballots
Tor members OF Congress. as 1t was conceded
was done by the defendants was unauthorized
by law.
The important part of this case is. what was
the intent Of the commissioners In using the
three ballot-boxes2 The prosecution charges that
II was done Tor the purpose of affecting the elfc-
ton OF q member of Congress or the result
thereof. NO matter how much it affected the re
suits OF the election for ward officers. parish
officers CT members of the State Legislature,
we have nothing to do with that And unless
the purpose Of the defendants ~ was TO affect
the election of members in Congress there can
be no conviction In this case
Toe rlle Of law is that every man intends the
natural reeult of his act. Now. If the natural
result of the act Of these defendants were to
affect the result of the election of member Of
Congress, you might infer that such was their
purpose.
/ question for your consideration is, In this
case. did the use of three ballot boxes naturally
affect the result OF the election of member Of
ConRressf Ii It did not affect it, that is the end
Of this case. II it did affect it, then you are to
inquire further whether ne presumption
arising from the nature OF the act has been re-
butted by the proof.
The defense claims that no such an implica
ton would necessarily follow from such an
act. and If It did that they have succeeded in re-
butting such implication. On this point the de-
Tense has introduced evidence tending to show
that one of the defendants, or two of them per-
haps, took legal advice as to what their duties