The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-12-17
A Question Answered.


-
ACQUISITION Answered.
The following comes to us from Read
iuster lawyer:
To the Editor of the Dispatch.
Allow me to ask you II tho United States
District Court would under the enforce
ment act have Jurisdiction in the following
casef l ask 1t IN view OF your laying so
much stress on the words cat an election"
Suppose Al. and others were indicted for
a conspiracy TO prevent fair election OF
members Of the House OF Representatives
In the Congress Of the United States and
to obstruct the election Of said representa-
tivcs In this: That on the night before
said election they did kidnap, carry away
TO the county Of Chesterfield, and keep in
fdurancc vile all through the next day, that
being e,cction-tlay, in certain pine barrens
Of said county Of Chesterfield, far removed
from the city OF Richmond, the United
states marshal for the Eastern district of
Virginia. and each deputy marshal
and every Republican supervisor APP
pointed TO attend the elections to
be had that day in said city OF Richmond
for representative In the Congress Of the
United states for the Third district OF Vir-
ginia, so that said MAJ shal, deputy mar
shsls, and supervisors were wholly pre-
vented from performing their duties at said
election, and the said election was greatly
obstructed, and the people wholly de-
prived OF that protection to and guaranty
OF their right to have free ballot aud
fair count TO which they were entitled
under the Constitution Of the United
States, and the laws made in pursuance
thereof. II.
The United States courts would have
jurisdiction In such case; but not be-
cause The offence vas done cat an cleo
tion." We arc surprised that any lawyer
should be unable 10 see the difference be-
tween the case supposed by OH" and the
case we have been discussing. The differ
ence between six dozen dozen and half
dozen dozen is not more plain. We will
try to explain to the satisfaction Of OH"
The language OF the law which 1t is
charged, let us say, Mr.. TALMaN violated
is that "J at any election" &C., an I'M
lawful act is done the person guilty OF
that unlawful act shall be punished. Now,
it is perfectly clear that In order to prove
the guilt of The person charged with the
offence in this case it must be shown that
he committed The unlawful act on election
day. A person charged with the offence
described in CHS" letter could be in
dictcd under different section OF the Re
vised Statutes Of The United States. but not
under section SOIL, which Is the one in
which oc,ur the words sat an election"
upon which words we have laid so much
stress i'll our articles upon this subject.
The indictment which was published in
the Dispatch week or two ago failed to
make the distinction to which we have
called "H.'s" attention, and was there
fore, so wo have commended. fatally deiec-
tive. Instead OF charging that the offence
was committed ''at an election" il simply
charged that tho offence was committed for
the purpose of preventing some person or
persons from voting at an election. Now,
this latter is the offence described in
"H.'s" letter; and person guilty of it
could not be indicted under section 5j1l,
but would have TO be indicted, il at all,
under section $500, which provides in
terms for the very case supposed by OH"
But il there were no other section under
which the crime described 10y "H." could
be punished. he certainly ought, as law
yer, to know that this would be 10 reason
why such person should be indicted under
section 65lt, which does not describe his
offence at "A. oh" either resorts to the
ob inconuenientii, which he
knows is not allowable, or else he argues
that a criminal must be punished under
section bill because no other section can
bc made to apply to his offence, or, to state
il differently, he argues chat criminal
for imprisoning him.
We will Try to enable " H." TO see the
point we made against say the TAIMAN in
dictmcnt. Tbc law requires that the Of
fence charged shall have beoa committed
sat an election" for congressman. But
this is not charged at all. The defendant
is charged only with doing an unlawful
act 10 enable some one to vote st such an
election. In the law it is the offence that
must be committed sat an election In
the indictment nothing at all is charged to
have been done sat an election" The de-
PENDANT is simply charged with doing an
unlawful act TO enable somebody to vote
sat IN election" In other words, the in
dictmcnt Is Us far out OF the way rs "il.,"
who evidently supposes that an unlawful
act committed 10 prevent him from voting
at an election Is the same thing rs an UNI
lawful acs committed at an election. We
have no fear that Judge HUGHES will fail
to perceive The broad distinction between
the two.
A New England man voted his butter
bill by mistake instead of his ballot, and
the counters, with a knowledge OF butter
dealers probably, threw il out as iraudu-
lent. Boston Eosi.
That is the way our Virginia Canyassing
Board did with Gloucester county, but, like
revised milk with the milkman's custom
ers, MAyo's majority Of one will he too thin
for Congress.
Mcssis. BECKwITT e. PARHAM have sent
to us a copy Of their illustrated Christmas
catalogue. Christmas, 1882.
|
Home Education. BY j. PETRRKIN, Rector
OF -. James's Church. Richmond, Va.
+, Richmond: WEST, JOHNSTON a. Co.