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

~ The town We're collected hy
news hastily sent out thatt the Democrats had
taken Blunt and were going to xiii him and
their sole purpose was tn rescue him and save
MS ne. IN short, that any threat that was
made, OF any threatening crowd that was col
leCted, were the result Of the unlawful and
violent conduct OF the accused. and not the
cause nf such conduct.
1t is claimed further bv the prosecution
that the evidence shows that the design of the
accused was political. that 80 far from keep
Ing Blunt as a hostage they released him on
the night Of the twenty -irst of September on
condition that he would leave the parish aud
State, and that the Punishment of the other
leading Republicans Of the parish shows that
the purpose was To accomplish a political OBJ
jpet, and not to preserve the peace, which
never was threatened except aa a consequence
Of the unlawful acts Of the accused
The prosecution further claims tD have
shown that a newspaper. printed in Natchi-
tuehpa. called the IipdicutUr, aud recognized
rs the organ Of the Democrats Of the parish,
aud which WAS edited and published by one
of the alleged cbnsprators, declared on OCto-
her g. 1878, that the result of the proceedings
uf September q was political victory.
Such are the conflicting views and claims of
the prosecution and defense. 1t IL for you, and
not for the court, to cay whether what the
prosecution claims To have proven is proven,
and whether, II proven, II sustains the charges
uf the indictment. II is also for YOU to az y
whether the facts set ~ by the defense have
been proven, and whether, If proven, they
successfully rebuff the case az claimed by the
prosecution.
The court does not undertake to decide for
you what the evidence Is. II is for YOU to re-
member the testimony aud draw your own
deductions from w. | have simply stated
substantially what is claimed by both sides
and you must determine which claim is estab-
ishpd by the proof,
You will observe that the conspiracy alleged
In the Indictment though charged to have
been entered into on September q, was for n
purpose which could not he fully accomplish
ed until the election IN November. In other
words tho conspiracy. according to the in
dictment, runs from September II ~ the Tues
day after the first Monday In November fol-
lowing.
Under this Indictment instruct you that II
the purpose Of the conspiracy was 10 prevent
bn election ut Republican narochiRl officers
ct to effect the result OF the eleetipn general Y
In the State vet If IL also formed part 81
their design ~ prevent Blunt and others from
advocating and supporting the election nj
Wells to Congress, aud the proof showed
that fact, II would sustain that part oi the
indictment which alleges that 10 be the
purpose " the conspiracy. and If at any
time subsequent to September 81, and before
the election, yOa should he satisfied by the
proof that the design to prevent Blunt and
others from advocating and supporting
Wells az n candidate for Congress became a
came tn entertain that purpose might prop
erly be found guilty. If II has been estlb-
lished that the defendants acted with the
common purpose charged IN the indictment,
the fact that they also entertained other VHr-
poses would not show that this part of tho ease
had not been made out, IT an agreement be-
tween several Is formed IA lawful PURPOSE.
and they afterwards change their design 81
as to include an unlawful act. all who CON
tfnue In the conspiracy with knowledge Of ita
IN nj n IN ~ thA
spiracy.
II is said by the defense that the indict-
mpnt charges that the purpose Of the con
Rpiracy was To prevent the advocacy aud
support nf Wells Ivy Blunt and others to the
grand jurors unknown. aud that the Others"
SO referred to IN the indictment We're not I'M
known, and therefore the prosecution must
fail 1t is claimed by the defense that the
evidence before you shows that the two Bre-
daa. Barron and others are the persons re
ierfed to in the indictment as the "uthers I'm
known" and that they were not unknown TO
the grand jury.
On this branch 81 tho case instruct you
that you cannot presume that the persons
just named were the ones referred to I'm the
Indictment The claim Of the prosecution
II that more than one half the voters Of the
parish of Natchtochps were prevented by
the conspiracy of the accused from giving
their support to Wells "a q candidate for
Congress-, and If that IL established aud Won
are satisfied that among the persons 81 pre-
vented by the conspiracy from giving their
were unknown to the grand jury. that would
be sufficient to establish the averment in ques-
ton.
II YOU shall find undcr these instructions
that the prosecution has failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt the charges con.
tanned In the Indictment that will end your
deliberations and You will close the case Nv
returning general verdict of not guilty rs
to all the defendants.
IT, on the other hand. YOU shall he satisfied
with that degree Of certainty which tho law
requires. that the conspiracy charged in the
indictment has been established hy the proof
and that it, purpose was tho purpose charged,
then YOU will proceed to consider who of the
defendants are shown by the testimony to
have entered into the conspiracy.
IT. iE conceded nv the prosecution that the
proof does not establish the guilt Of the fol
lowing defendants namely;
David Blackburn, Alien I. Wheeler, George
Gillespie, N H. Campbell, James II. Hill.
Joseph +. Charlcvie and Charles Payne.
These of course you will find not guilty.
You will proceed to taknup the cases Of the
defendants one by one, and endeavor to as
certain whether tho evidence shows them to
be guilty of the charge in the indictment.
You must To satisfied as to each one Of them
that he entered into the conspiracy, and with
the purpose of cfTccting the object charged.
before you can find him guilty. Some Of the
defendants have been put upon the stand,
and YOU have heard their testimony. Others
have not offered to testify. A recent act of
Congress- makes the defendants in a crim-
nal cause comepetent To testify In their own
behalf at their own request. But tho same
act says that the failure of defendant TO
make such a request shall not create any pre-
against him.
You are the sole judges of the credibiity
Of the witnesses and the weight OF the evil
dence. All the witnesses have been on the
stand before you, You have seen their
manner of testifying. You have heard their
story, and you must decide what credence
you will give them. Where witnesses tes-
tiy under the stress of interest or of preju-
dice you will decide what allowance should
be made for such interest or prejudice.
| commit the decision of the facts OF this
case to you. 1t IL a case of magnitude not
only Go the defendants but to the govern
ment. Tho government Is Interested to see
that the rights of citizens OF Louisiana who
are qualified to vote for members of Con
gress are protected. All the people OF all the
states are interested In preserving the purity
and freedom Of the elections by which the
House OF Representatives, which legislates
Ter the whole country. is chosen. The people
OF Georgia and Virginia and Pennsylvania
anu Illinois are almost as deeply concerned in
h 4