Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1883-12-13
The Morkrille enquirer.
YORKVELLE. s. G. :
THURSDAY MORNING, DEC. 10, 1883.
THE POLITICAL TRIALS.

1HE fOLlllCAL 1nkALS'
Judge Bonds outrage mill at Columbia is
now in complete working order, and the
political trials are progressing as rapid
ly as the glorious uncertainties of the law,
as dispensed in the United States Cir
cult Court, will permit. When the ENoUIR-
Err was printed last week, the first case
that of John Mitchell, a colored Democrat
of fCharleston, had not been concluded. The
jury was composed entirely of Greenback-
ers and Republicans, through the "stand-
ing aside" tactics of the District Attorney
and his coadjator, Mr.. Speer, of Georgia.
The testimony in the case was heard on
Monday, and the arguments on Tuesday of
last week, when the jury retired. At II
O'Clock that night they announced that they
were unable to agree, but Judge Bond said
he must have verdict, and had them lock-
ed up until Wednesday morning. On We'd
nesday they again reported that they were
unable to agree, when they were discharg-
ed and mistrial was ordered to be entered.
1t is said that three of thejury were in favor
of acquittal.
The next case taken up was that of Mr..
Horsey, Supervisor of Registration for
Charleston county, the charges against him
being failure to register the names of Re-
publican voters, thereby deprivng them of
the privileges of the ballot. Five hours
were consumed in examining three witness
es when District Attorney Melton, address
ing the Court, said that he had no hesitation
in saying that, in his opinion, the offence
had been technically made out. Therewere
five other witnesses yet held in reserve by
the prosecution, who were the persons
against whom these acts of the accused were
alleged to have been chiefly operative; but,
in the progress of the case, matters had ap-
peared which he did not fully comprehend,
and now if these five witnesses testified
on the stand as they had told their story to
him, and he doubted not that they would,
he was bound to confess that, were he on
The jury, the evidence would not be sutfi-
cient to justify him in finding verdict
against the defendant. He said the jury was
now in possession of all the case, the testimo-
nv of these five witnesses could not make it
any stronger, and as he had said at the out
set he did not design to have conviction
which did not address itself to his Judgment
as one obtained beyond reasonable doubt,
and as the Government did not ask a con-
viction in such cases, he would be satisfied;
if the the jury were 50 disposed, that they
would enter a verdict of acquittal in this
case.
Judge Bond accordingly directed the clerk
to enter on the record verdict of not gull
ty, which was done and the case was ended.
On Friday, the case of Bethea and others,
from Marion county, was taken up. These
defendants are charged with conspiring to-
gether to break up political meeting held
in Marion C. H. by McLane and Bowen,
candidates for Governor and Congress re-
spectively, in the summer of 1882.
The defendants are among the most prom
inent, respectable and intelligent Democrats
of Marion county, and as the case has there
fore elected great interest all over the State
and called forth the most determined efforts
of the defeated Radical horde, backed by
the enginery of the prosecuting department
of the United States Government to make
good the charge. A large array of witness
es have been bought up-all Of them, with
the exception of NTcLane, Bowen and few
of the Government officials, negroes of the
lowest order of intelligence and character.
The accused are defended by Judge A. G..
Magrath and Mr.. j. p. X. Brian and their
local counsel, Messrs. J. NJ. johnson and j.
G. Blue.
The names of the defendants are +. \.
Bethea, II. c. Moody j. R. Wilkinson, j..
S. Scott, J. A. Williams, c. f. Mcpherson,
w. F. Claussen and w. S. McCleninghan,
all of whom were in court.
When the case was called, Mr.. Brian
filed notice of motions and demurrers as in
the former cases, of which due notice was
taken by the Court.
Mr.. Miles, for the defense, submitted the
following motion:
And now comes the defendant and moves the
Court to rescind the order whereby the infor-
nation in the above entitled cause was permit
ted to be filed and entered upon the docket and
to strike the said information from the files and
dockets of this court and for the discharge of
the defendants from the several recognlZances
for the following causes, to wit:
First The otfense charged in said informa-
ton, to wit: conspiracy" is i'll its nature, in
famous involving moral turpitude, and is one OF
the class and character known and defined IN the
Constitution and laws of the United States as
''infamOuS - and defendants cannot under sad
Constitution and laws be held to answer to same,
unless upon presentment of an indictment of a
grand jury.
Second The said information was filed by the
United States District Attorney as OF course,
without notice to the defendants Of Applications
for leave to file the same was not based upon
probable cause shown to the Court by oath or
affirmation Of the facts charged and without any
order signed by the Judge of this court granting
leave to file the same.
This motion was argued until the adjourn
ment of Court, when Judge Bond said he
would announce his decision next morning.
On the convening of Court, Saturday morn
ing, Judge Bond at once proceeded to an
nounce the decision at which he had arrived
on the motion to quash the information on
the grounds submitted by Mr.. Miles and ar
gued on Thursday. He said he saw a great
difference in the section of the statute under
which the information for conspiracy in the
case of Butler had been drawn, and that un-
der which the present case was presented to
the Court In the Butler case the section
prescribed a punishment for the conspiracy
against which it was directed, the loss of
certain civil and political rights, which fixed
it, in the judgment of the Court, as an in
famous offence. But the sections involved
in the case before the Court now say moth
ing of the kind, but Furnishes the offence
only with fine and imprisonment.
The sections of the statute which have
been relied upon by counsel for the defense
to support their views of the matter, in his
view, only indicated that at the time of the
trial of any cause, the Courtmight interpose
it's authority to prevent any person convict
ed of the offence herein declared, from sit