Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-03


BRUCEis CONDUCT AT HUNTSVILLE.
Here is the extreme way in which the
New York Tunes puts the case:
II has been complained in South Carolina that
the United states judge BULLDOGS the jury and tue
counsel They manage these things better in Ala
bama. where the counsel BULLDOGS the Judge In
the United states Circuit Court at Huntsville,
while pending election cases were being tried the
counsel for the defendants denounced the charge
OF the judge, saying in open court that il was ian
GU rage and inst he had nc rirbt 10 make s1,ch a
charge to the jury This novel method OF taking
tors who cheered and staInised as tbs1eb the
were in a political mass-meeting. The jury &C
quilted the prisoners and were discharged by the
ance in court recommended by he 5ii+snt
should be kept together 10 try his csses
The counsel also Claimed that the iudge
had no right to discharge a Jury, The scene j.
described as being disgraceftl in the extreme and
the language of the lawyer is certainly most AFRO
Walker an ex-6onfeierste cepersI Who Is sud 70
have given the order fire the first gun against
Tort sumter. In Huntsville, Ala, judge Of
the South is bound to respect
General Walker is one of the abIest law
yers OF the South, and no member of the bar
is more considerate of the rights and dignity
OF the bench. So conservative has he always
been IN this respect that he has been fire.
quenty censured by the public for yielding
to the court more than the circumstances
justified. The criticism of the Times misses
its mark. Let us look into the facts of this
Huntsville outrage and see whether il is BOT
a case wherein the true sons of the South
have no rights that a Federal District Court
is bound to respect. The case before
the court was this: Two Of the
managers of election at box in
Madison county were indicted for not count
ing certain ballots deposited therein at the
election held in November, 1880. The only
testimony against Them was that of the third
manager, who swore that the ballots had
upon them certain figures which he and the
defendants deseribei were marks. which.
under the laws of Alabama, made the ballots
illegal; that he agreed with the defendants
in this conclusion, and that If ii was an error
1t was honestly made. Upon this evidence
Bruce charged the jury that the figures upon
the ballots were not marks which made them
illegal, and that the question of intent did
not enter into the guilt or innocence of the
accused, and that if they believed the evil
dence they must find the defendants guilty,
although they nigh believe that they honest
ly decided that the ballots ought not to be
counted. The jury acquitted the accused,
and thereupon Judge Bruce discharged
them and refused, with insult to continue
them as jurymen. Doubtless he had a right
TO order them dieeh aIge5, but by doing so
he sought to intimidate other jurymen from
doing their sworn duty, and his action tend
ed to pack juries, who might decide accord
ing TO the wishes of the court. The rights
of the accused, which Judge Bruce attempt
ed so insolently to trample upon, are clearly
defined by the law-writer, Mr.. Bishop, as
follows:
But where man serves in a judicial or other
capacity, in which ne is called to exercise judg-
ment OF his own he Is not punishable for mere
error therein or for mistake of the law. Here
the act, to be eognizable criminally, even civ
lily, must be willful and corrupt.
The jury dared to say that the action of
the managers of election was not willful and
corrupt, although the jujge had instructed
them that such action was necessarily willful
and corrupt. The Montgomery Aduerttser in
recent article puts the case very strongly
thus:
The law under which these defendants were act
ing Is 10 be found on pages u, % Of the acts of
ls1S-7g. That law requires that the "paliot must
be plain piece of white paper without any fig
ures, marks, rulings, characters embellishments
thereon, and any ballot otherwise than de-
scribed Is illegal and must be rejected" How re-
1ected; by whom? Necessarily by the managers
whose duty 1t is made to count them, and out of
whose hands they never go except in cases of con-
test Now the duty placed upon them by law to
reject the ballots ii they contain certain marks is
imperative, and carries with it necessarily the
power to determine whether not the marks on
the ballots of the prohibited character; and in
doing this they must necessarily exercise judg-
ment. In the case under discussion the ballots
did have figures upon them, and the proof was
that the managers did honestly decide that such
figures We're such were forbidden by law anG
rejected them. If Judge Bruce is correct in his
ca position of the law, had toey failed 10 DO so,
courts ana those courts ad held that the figurt
made the ballots Illegal they subjected themselves
70 a Prosecution for MT doing the very thing
which he holds them criminslly liable for doing.
The absurdity OF a doctrine contrary to the one
heIe advanced is so clear that we deem il unnec-
essary to say anything more on that subject.