Huntsville gazette., 1882-04-29
u. S. Court.
The Jury in the Election Case Agree
to Disagree---List Of Jurors
for the Fall Term.
Adjournment

Adjournment.
AS stated last week, argument in
The second election case, U. S. VS..
Balridge, High and Horton, was con-
cluded last Saturday: We clip from
the Adcocate the following summary
of JUDGE BRUCEs CHARGE
Commencing by reading the section 5515
of the Revised Statutes of the United States.
under which His Honor stated the defend
ants were indicted, he would define the
ection in order that the jury might have
as clear view of its scope, purpose and in
tention, and he hoped he would have no in
terruptions by counsel. The statute in
question related to the violation of duty by
officers of elections, and created a crime
! in the violation of the right of franchise
right upon which rested the stability of
the Government. The statute in question
required most rigid and faithful perform
who, as such, occupied most important
fiduciary position.
AS to the use of the word "intent, " he
disagreed with the defendants counsel up
on the sweeping application Of the princi-
pie that there could be no crime without
intent. To neglect duty was one thirg
and to do something unauthorized, was an
other thing. 1t was of Indifferent quality
whether the offense was neglecting or re-
fusing to perform duty required by law.
certificate of election might be withheld
without being coupled with intent. Judges
of courts of record were held responsible
for honest mistakes. Then did the defend
arts intend to do what they did do Was
that thing violation of the law? When
one does an act, legally wrong, the law pre-
sumes an intent-61 Ala.
This principle being widely applied in
many other affairs of law and business,
there were strong reasons why it should be
applied to officers Of elections. Where Off
GERS Of elections have the means to prevent
mischief and do not do so, their conduct is
culpable. and what the law calls terminal
carelessness, and having had power to
avert the mischief, and failing to do so,
they cannot be heard to say they had 40
criminal intent. Yet the law does not re-
quire impossibilities. 1t often happened
that evils result in the performance of legal
duties without a criminal intent,
AS to the section of the State code which
required inspectors of elections to count
the votes Immediately upon the close OF
the polls, it was not a penal statute, but
under section 55l5 of the U: S. Revised
Statutes, the statute was mandatory.
| The prosecution had said that these Off
GERS hau violated this duty. The testimony
showed an hour and half had elapsed be-
fore the count was made. The word .sim-
mediately," should receive reasonable
construction, and did not mean upon the
instant, but clearly did mean the next thing
to be done. That no other business should
have been done, rested on reason, as well as
the letter Of the law. Delay might afford
/ OPPOItuHItJ lOl uioChlCi ny GtA-ulSpOScO
persons, and thus with the suggestion of
circumstances and temptations the ballot
box might be ratified. 1t sometimes hap
pened that delay was caused by change
of place, the getting of lights and the tax
ing of food. The ba1lot-box should in the
mean time be kept secure; in other wor ds
should not De left lying around loose.
| When an officer acted in disregard Of his
official and legal duty, carelessly and negli-
gently, he was held responsible, whether
there was intent or not, No officer had a
right to be careless with his trust Care
fully considering the evidence, and remem-
bering that officers must discharge their
duties as would be expected of conscien-
tious and prudent persons. he left the mat
ter to the Jury to judge the defendants by
that rule Of conduct. and upon that rule
they should convict or acqnit.
] The case was then given To the Jury