The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-04-11
Prosecution OF Officers for Conspiracy
TO Prevent Assessment Of Read
jusier Voters who were
Omitted from the
Regular Books.

Wilkes, II. III. wilkins, Charles W. God
din, and Edward Gray. are charged in an
indictment and likewise on information
with conspiring to hinder and obstruct
friends and supporters OF Messrs. John :.
Wise and John Amber Smith from
being assessed for the payment OF
the pOll-taX OF 1sSl-tO wit, William Al
len. William Easlcy, Thomas Cousins. Ran
dolph jackson, Asa Read, William Blair,
William Fortune. and others.
Judge w. W. Crump, Hill Carter, Esq,
and Mr.. W. W. Henry appeared as counsel
for Mr.. Muniord. The Government was
represented by District-Attorney Edmund
Waddill, assisted by John :. Wise, Esq.
TAKE YOvR CHOICE.
Mr.. Carter asked the District Attorney
whether he proposed first TO proceed upon
the indictment or upon the information.
The reply was. Upon the information"
Mr.. Carter said then, " You ought to dis
miss the Indictment" The District At
torncy said no; he would not do that at
present. Mr. Carter submitted the matter
TO the decision OF the court. Judge Bond.
after holding a whispered conversation
with Judge Hughes. announced as their
conclusion that the District Attorney was
not bound to dismiss the indictment.
LEGAL QUESTIONS.
Mr.. Carter: 1--WE move TO quaSh the in
formation and demur TO it," He then pro-
ceeded 10 argue in support Of the motion,
maintaining that il WI, vague and uncer-
tain and did not afford the accused the in
formation which hc was entitled to have.
The Constitution gives To every accused
the right to have his offence set out con-
cIsely and specifically. Here the language
Of the prcsentmcnt-" 10y Sundry dlscriml-
mating, unlawful, unfair, dilltory. unne-
ceSSary. frivolous. yeNatiouS ways ana
methods by them then and there contriyed
and concocted"-is so vague aS to give no
iniimation Of what crime will be proved,
and yet 50 broad a. TO cover hindrance
occasioned by cannon> and Calling guns
brought to bear upon voters, by kukluN,
by false imprisonment. or by sticks ana
bludgcons. And again: The prc>cntment
charges that the persons applying 70 be rs
ses,cd were citizens OF Richmond in lSS2.
II ,hould have been 1881, otherwise they
have never been reported delinquent.
ASSESSMENT UNNECESSARY.
Further. Mr. Carter held that the law
from which he quoted) did not entltic
these citizens f. demand to be assessed Tor
the wear 1881 in the month Of November,
1882.
Judge Hughes asked what law it was
that entitled voters to pay up to the day
of election. and Mr.. Carter said that the
voters could pay up under the law without
heinz assessed. AttOrncy-Gcncrll Blair
had given that a. his opinion before the
election. MIR. Carter went beyond that and
claimed that not only was such assessment
unnece. .sary. but accused Lad no right 10
make it.
THE POLL-TAX REPEAL.
The next point considered by him was
that this would not be an offence II now
committed. Under this head he considered
the effect OF the repeal OF the constitutional
provision requiring the prepayment OF the
poll-taX a. a qualification for voting. lie
contendcd that the repeal yoided these
prosecutions. inasmuch as there was no
saving clause in the repeal preserving the
penalty. The repeal OF law carries with
it the right TO prosecute. unless theriSht 80
to do is expressly preserved.
To sustain this view he referred the
Court TO a long line Of decisions OF the
highest courts in this country. Consider
irr the effect Of thi, repeal upon the United
States statute under which these prosccu-
hons were instituted he asserted subStan-
tilllv that the repeal knocked the bottom
out of the application Of the statute to this
case.
ALREADY DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Mr.. Carter argued that this particular
statute (jj0G) had been declared by the
/ United States supreme Court Gn Reese, ID
1 Ofto.) unconstitutional and void; as being
/ too broad and ambiguous.
! This whole question OF the constitutions
olity Of tai, section lac elaboratey con-
sidtred. and authorities were largely
ouoted from in support OF his view. The
distinctions between the Rees and Seb0ld
case, were pointed out.
IT Is SUFFICIENT.
Mr.. Wise. replying TO the argument OF
/ Mr.. Carter. c0ntcuded that the information
,rgS cXulicit. and that it particularizcd ~
much as was possible, foraSmuch as diff
frrerl mrlhod-diliercnt questions-was
used I'm c.~e oi each person ob>tructed.
He rcbuticd the idea that any treasurer in
| Viroini, Ua, authorized to receive taxes
tbat had never been assessed. lie chal-
lenoed the production OF any law author
iyipo the Auditor or any treasurer TO re-
ceive fax not assessed. The whole sys-
fem belouos TO the states general system
Of check. and balances. The laws on this
subject were quoted. Without the issuing
OF the Supplemental lists Tor omitted
faxes bv the commissioner the Treasurer
would have If all in his own hands; there
would be no check upon nm, ana more
than that. these omitted taxpayers would
90 scot free Of payment. After the toll,
sweat. and rascaitv that has been prac-
ticed TO yet them. Mr.. Wise thought II
rather late i'm the day TO claim that these
supplemental assessments were unneces-
sary.
POWER TO AMEND.
But supposing that all the points OF de-
fence are good. Mr.. Wise salu that under
the rules OF practice OF TINS court tie court
could amend the information. lie diq not
think it necessary, but the court had the
undoubted power 80 10 40.
lie maintained that the Law OF congress
covering this ease was not impaired by the
p0ll-taX repeal. Accused are hot proSecu-
ted for ANYTHING that has been repealed by
the State, but for cheating ana sWindiing
at elections. The capitatloh-ldN mas been
repealed, but the law that MADE cheating
and swindling nj elections crime l. still
in force. The giSt oi the crime Is the
fraud upon the franchise
All the other points raised were briefly
considered by Mr.. Wise, Whlch done, the
court took short recess
THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
District. Attorney WaddiIl made briei
statement OF the law under which the sup
Elemental lists were issued, and summed
UP the merits Of the controversy, claiming
that this information was good and should
stand.
Then Mr.. Henry, OF counsel for defence
continued the argument in support OF the
motion to quasl. giving to all the points SC