Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-01-24
THE ELECTION CASES
Recently Tried 1t Oxford Before Judge
Hill, OF the Unfted States
District Court.
Plain Statement OF Facts Not Calcu.
lated 10 Increase Respect for
Federal Justice.
Regular Correspondence of the Appeal. ]

Regular Correspondence of the Appeal
HOLLY SPRINGS, MISS, January 20.-The
following abstract of the several election
cases, tried during the past week in the Fed
eral Court at Oxford, will prove net only
interesting in itself, but when taken in con-
nection with the protests Of Judge Hill and
District-Attorney Chandler, it becomes also
highly instructive. These gentlemen indig-
nantly deny that the slightest foundation
exists for the adverse criticism visited upon
the court by the press, and stoutly maintain
that no partisan bias has animated the pros
ecution Of these cases. On the part Of Judge
Hill this protest lie evidently sincere. The
purity of his official character is uudisputed.
That he earnestly endeavors to administer
justice with an impartial hand, and that his
breast is animated by honorable motives
only, the bar, the press and the people have
never questioned. That his honest
convictions as lawyer differ widely
from the convictions and, indeed, the most
cherished traditions of the great mass OF the
Southern people, is undoubtedly true. He
is Federalist, and has an exaggerated idea
of the powers and the extent of the jurisdic-
ton OF the Federal Court. He is Repub-
lican, and has but little respect for the au-
tonomy or the reserved rights and powers of
the several States. But these are believed
to be honestly entertained convictions; and
he is accredited, moreover, with purity Of
character, and held to be man incapable OF
knowingly perpetrating wrong. He presents.
therefore, a striking example OF the ease
with which an honest man may be blinded
by personal friendships and political bias,
when these Instruments, in the hands of
crafty and designing politicians, are used TO
influence his judgment and guide his official
conduct. For when we consider all the un-
disputed facts concerning the composition of
the juries which indicted and tried the cleo
ton cases just di posed of by the court, as
we'll the facts developed during the prog.
ress OF the trial, it is certainly in the highest
degree remarkable that q man of Judge
Hills intelligence would expect anything
less than the severest criticism both of the
court and its officers.
As for the district attorney, the depth Of
his sincerity in protesting his innocence of
any other motive than faithfully to perform
the duties of his Office can best be deter.
mined from the following brief account of
the several cases prosecuted by him and his
equally disinterested and impartial assistant,
James r. Chalmers.
The first case called up on Monday, the
18th instant, was the United States ps. Nail
and Kirkland. The defendants were in
spectors of election at the Oak Grove pre-
cinct, in Desoto county, and the Indictment
charged them with refusing to receive the
votes of four registered voters. Upon the
trial the proof disclosed the fact that three
of these voters really did vote at that box,
and that their votes were received and
counted. The vote of the fourth voter was
not received because, as the proof showed,
he had been convicted of larceny, and, in
consequence, was not, by the constitution of
the State, legal voter. This man, who was
one OF the governments witnesses, admitted
tho afaud hat he kaI
victed of larceny. This trial proved,
therefore, complete vindication OF
the defendants. In fact, the failure
OF the government was so complete that the
district attorney was moved to explain why
these parties had been prosecuted at all; for
fully to appreciate these cases it must be re-
member. that they entail heavy expense
upon defendants, and that more than one
honest man has been ruined financially by
a malignant partisan prosecution in this
court. Just after this case was dismissed,
and while the jury we're seated in the box
waiting for the next case. Chandler made, in
effect, the following remarkable statement:
Il have been informed" said he, shat a
great deal OF fraud was perpetrated in the
recent election in Dssoto county. 1t seems,
however, that in this case the grand Jury
made mistake in the parties, but in the
cases which follow l am sure we have the
right parties, and want the jury to punish
tbem."
This was said Just before the next ca Sc
was called, and TO the jury by whom it was
to be tried, and could not have bsen uttered
for any other purpose than to influence their
verdict. Yet he had no more right to make
such a remark at the time it was made than
one of the defendants would have had to
argue with juror on his own case during a
recess of the court.
The next case was against the commits
sioners of election of Lafayette county, who
were indicted for refusing 10 erase the names
of students from the registration books.
Upon the trial it was argued by the govern
menfs attorneys that students, although
over twenty.one years of age, are not, by the
laws Of the State, legal voters, and that the
refusal to erase their names from the books
was violation OF the law. The result of
this trial was hung jury.
The next case was from Desoo county;
the United States Us. DIR. Owen, an election
inspector, charged in the indictment with
ballot-boI stuthog. Here was an eminently
respectable citizen formally charged in
court with the most heinous of all crimes
against the election laws. Surely there must
be some foundation for such a charge as this,
especially when it is cody made in long
Indictment carefully framed according to
law, by an attorney, who, "if he knows his
own heart, is incapable OF prosecuting any
man on account of his politics. This
charge was based upon the testimony of one
F. Frank johnson, bitter and chsracierless
partisan, whose story was fatty contradicted
by all The other Witnesses on both sidss, and the
defendant received a complete vindication,
not only at the hands of his own witnesses.
but also by those called by the government
Ch..Il.r fslf III
moi conversed with his own witnesses. and
did not know what they would testify.
The United States rs. Barksdale and
Martin was the next case called. The de.
PENDANTS were inspectors of election at the
Hardy Station box, in Grenada county, and
were indicted for obstructing the United
States supervisor in the performance of his
duty The proof was that when the polls
were opened the inspectors said that every
body must leave except themselves and
the clerks. A negro supervisor then pro-
duced his commission, and the inspectors
said they did not think he had right to re-
main in the room, but did not tell him to 20
out, nor would they have insisted upon his |
leaving, had he chosen 10 remain. He, how
ever, left the room, and stood upon the out.
side during the day. When the case went
to the jury Chandler said in his speech that |
the inspectors had done nothing wrong, nor |
had they intended to do anything wrong;
but, nevertheless, they were technically |
guilty rs charged in the Indictment, and |
should be convicted. The fac, that The de- |
PENDANTS were high-toned, respectable gentle
men was all the better, as they would prove /
more brilliant examples, and ae 81 example /
was needed to make the laws respected, he /
asked for a verdict of conviction as indicted.
Fortunately there were enough honest men
on the Jury to prevent the granting of this /
infamous request The result was . hung
jury.
In our next letter We shall give an account
OF the Graball election case, and q synopsis
Of Judge Hill's decision in the case of the
Usited States GO. w. II. Carruthers and Bed
ford Turner-probably the most important
opinion ever rendered BY this court in an
election case. zoRAs.
TELEPHONE your orders for plumbing TO
J. A. Bailey's, 2a5 Second street,