The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-16
Other Gases.

ferring these rights.
Other Gases.
The Chief-justice has announced that at the
request of litigants in the important tax case
of the county of San Mateo against the
Southern Pacific Railway Company, the
case would be restored to its place on the
docket to await a hearing OF other cases in
volving the same or nearly the same ques.
ton. The other cases are those relating
to State taxation OF corporations recently
decided by Justice Field in the United States
Circuit Court for the District of California.
ANOTHER OPINION ON WAR LEGISLATION.
Another interesting case involving wal
legislation was also decided by the court to.
day, namely, the case of the United States
against Edward 7. Gale and William S. Glib.
son, brought here on a certificate of division
from the Circuit Court of the United States
for the district of Florida This was suit
against the supervisor and clerk OF election
of district No. Eight, in Marion county,
Florida, on the occasion of the election of q
congressional representative in 1878. The
indictment charges the defendants with
misconduct as election officers in
stutfing the ballot-box with fraudu-
lent tickets and abstracting tickets which
had been voted. The defense was
that sections 5,5l2 and 5,515 Revised Stat
utes, upon which the indictment was based,
and section $50 under which was chosen the
grand jury under which the indictment was
found, were unconstitutional and void. The
court disposes of the first part of the defense
very briefly, by saying that the question of
the validity of sections 5.512 and 5,515 have
already been decided by this court in the
case OF Siebold & Clarke 600 T. s., 371 399(
and was determined in favor of their valid
ity. Section $40, upon which the second
point of the defense was based contains the
statement OF causes for disqualification and
challenge of grand and petit jurors in courts
of the United States, as follows:
Without duress and coercion to have taken M
arms or to have joined insurrection or rebellion
against the United States, TO have adhered to
any nsurreetiOn or rebellion, giving it aid and
comfort, etc.
In impaneling the grand jury which found
the indictment against the defendants four
persons otherwise competent were excluded
from the panel for the causes mentioned in
this section. The court, after reviewing the
circumstances as shown by the record, de-
clines to decide whether section 800 is valid
or not, for the reason that objection to the
constitution of the grand jury under that Sec
ton was not raised in due time The
court, however, gives a brief history of this
law excluding from juries persons who took
part in the late insurrection, and comments
upon it as follows:
1T may be proper to call attention to the
singular position of this section (section
of an act passed June II, 1862, entitled AN
act defining different causes of challenge,
and prescribing an additional oath for
grand and petit jurors in the
United States courts. az Stat, 430.) At that
time-1S62-it was, no doubt, very proper
and necessary law, but after the rehabilitation
OF the insurgent States, the proclamation of
general amnesty, and the adoption of the
fourteenth amendment, guaranteeing equal
rights to all citizens of the United States,
there would seem to have been no just rea-
son for continuance OF the law, especially
IS by far the largest portion of the citizens
in the States lately in rebellion would be
disqualified under it, Accordingly, by the
fifth acG, commonly called the enforcement
act, passed April %, 1871 I7 Stat, 15), Con-
greSs, after providing that. in prosecutions
under that act, no person should be
grand or petit juror who should, in the
judgment of the court, be in completely
with any combination or conspiracy punish
BILE by the provisions thereof repealed said
first section of the act Of 1862 and the law
remained in this state until the adoption of
the revised statutes. For some uneXplaina-
Bile reason the revisers reported the section
back into the revised statutes as section
i'll force for more than two
years. 1t is probable the fact of its re-
peal was overlooked by Congress when the
revision was adopted, and it is TO be hoped
their attention will be called to it,"
The questions certified by the court below
are answered by this court as follows:
1T is the opinion of this court, and it so
decides, that the question whether sections
5,572 and 5,575 Revised Statutes of the
United States, are repugnant to and IN vio-
lati0n OF the constitution of the United
States should be answered in the negative,
and that the question as to the
validity of section $40 in said Revised
Statutes is unnecessary TO be decided.
inasmuch as the objection to the constitu-
ton of the grand jury under that section
was not raised in due time, and that the re-
naming questions namely, whether judg-
ment OF this court could be rendered
against defendants on an indictment found
by grand jury empaneled and sworn under
the section aforesaid, when the indictment
aforesaid charges any offences for which
Judgment could be rendered against de-
PENDANTS in this court, under the constltu-
tion and laws Of the United States should be
answered in the Affirmative" Opinion by
Justice Bradley.