The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1882-04-13
TIE ELECTION TRIALS.


The United States Circuit Court con.
vened in Charleston last week, Judges
Bond and Bryan presiding. The case OF
tie United States against Bates and
others, for frauds perpetrated q: the gen.
eyal election hold in 1880, was com
menced, and is still in progress. The
motion made by the defense to auash the
information, OH the ground that the
case should be by indictment, was over.
ruled by the Court, as was also the mo-.
tion of the District Attorney for leave to
amend the Indictment by adding new
counts charging different offence. The
challenge to the array having been
waived in this case, although retained in
the other election cases, the Court pro-
ceeded to the selection of jury. If
there was any doubt in the mind of any
reasonable man heretofore that these
trials were intended to be political ones
and for the purpose of political effect,
that doubt must be dissipated when the
course pursued by Mr.. Melton, the
United States District Attorney, in the
selection Of the jury is considered. 1t is
equally the duty of the United States
and its officers to protect the innocent as
it is to convict the guilty. Hence, the
law seeks the impaneling of n fair and
impartial jury, and expressly condemns
the selection Of n prejudiced, partisan or
political jury. Upon the organization Of
the jury, the right of tho District A,tor.
ney to require. an unlimited number of
the jurors drawn to stand aside until the
panel was exhausted was raised by The
defense, and, after q full argument Of the
question, the Court refused to decide it,
and proceeded with the case with The re.
mark that in the event Of the conviction
of the parties the motion in arrest of
judgment on that ground could then be
made, when it would be decided This
was manifestly unjust TO the parties on
trial. II tried st all, it was their right
to demand that the trial should be by q
jury lawfully drawn. There is vast
difference between the acqui;.al of one
charged of crime by the jury and his dis.
charge on motion in arrest of judgment
after conviction. The verdict of iury
is founded on The facts as proved, and if
it be one of not guilty the innocence of
the accused is legally established, but If
the verdict be guilty and the accused
discharged ON motion in arrest of judg.
ment, while it oxonerates him from pun.
ishment, it leaves the iHputation of guilt
still resting upon him, with the inference
that tho proven facts establish his guilt.
We repeat, this is unfair to the accused,
unless he .eeks only exemption from
the punishment which his crimes merits
and not the establishment Of his inno-
cence and vindication of his character.
In this case the panel consisted of
thirty Jurors, nineteen of whom were
white and eleven colored. The defence
were entitled under the ruling of the
Court to only three peremptory challen.
ges, while the prosecution was allowed
to require an indefinite number to stand
aside until the panel was exhausted.
The law required the jury to be composed,
as far as practical, of On equal number
from each of the political parties. 1t
will at once be seen that it was in the
power Of the District Attorney to pack
tho jury, and with the exceptions of three
to name every member of the ji.y. To
make this plain to every reader, the
ruling under which the jury was drawn
gave to the defense the right to reject |
three, and of the District Attorney
thersnpon to name the jury. In organic
ing the jury, tho defense peromp.orily
rejected three colored persons, two were
excused for cause, tho District Attorney
requested twelve white men to stand
lside, thus leaving the remaining eleven
,f The panel with the frst one requested
Q alana aside as tho jury 10 Try tho case.
We do not say one word against the |
fairness aud impartiality of the jury, for !