National Republican., 1883-10-17
WAR LEGISLATION.
Questions Raised by Election Cases Settled by
the Supreme Court
A Repealed Section Incorporated in the
Revised statutes-Tho Coupon Cases.

y. Gibson, which was brought here on GER |
tifcate of division from the circuit court Of
the United States for the district of Florida
This was o suit against the supervisor and
clerk of election district No. 8, in Marion
county, Florida, on the occasion Of the cleo
tion Of q congressional representative in 1878.
The indictment charged the defendants with
misconduct rs election officers in stufing the
ballot box with fraudulent tickets, and alb
stracting tickets which had been voted. The
defense was that sections 55l2 and 5515 Of the
revised statutes, upon which the indictment
WAS based, and section S20 under which was
chosen the grand jury by which the indict-
mont was found, were unconstitutional and
void.
The court disposes Of the first part Of the
defense very briefly by saying that the ques-
tion of the validity of sections 5512 and 5515
has already been decided by this court in the
case of Seibold VS.. Clarke 200 United States,
371, 399), and was determined in favor of
their validity.
Section S20, upon which the second part of
the defense was based, contains statement
of causes for the disqualification and challenge
of grand and petit jurors in the courts OF the
United States as follows: without duress
and coercion to have taken up arms or TO have
Joined any insurrection or rebellion against
the United States, to have adhered to any in
surrection or rebellion, giving aid and COM
fort" sc.
In impaneling the grand jury which
found the indictment against the defendants,
four persons, otherwise competent, were ex-
cluded from the panel for the causes men
toned in this section. The court, after a re-
view of the circumstances as shown by the
record, declines to decide whether section
500 is valid or not for the reason that the OBJ
lection to tho constitution of the grand jury
under that section was not raised in due
time. The court, however, gives brief his
tory of this law, excluding from juries per-
sons 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 S20)
1t was originally enacted as section of the
act passed June II, 1862, entitled ian act de-
fning different causes of challenge and pre-
scribing an additional oath for grand and
petit Jurors in United States courts" (l2 Stat,
430). At that time (1s62) it was no doubt a
very proper and necessary law, but after the
rehabilitation of the insurgent states, the
proclamation of general amnesty, and tho
adoption of the fourteenth amendment guar
anteeing equal rights to all citizens of the
United States, there would seem to have been
no just reason for the continuance of the law,
especially as by far the largest portion of
citizens in the states lately in rebellion
would be disqualified under it. Accordingly
by the fifth section of the act, commonly
called the enforcement act" passed April 20,
1871 az Stat, 15), congress, after providing
that in prosecutions under that act no person
should be grand or petit juror, who should,
in the Judgment of of the court, be in COM
plicity with any combination or consp Tracy,
punishable by the provisions thereof, repealed
the said first section of the act of 1862, and
the law remaiued in this state until the
adoption of the revised statutes. For some
unexplained reason the revisers imported the
section back again into the revised statutes
(as section 500, although it had not been in
force for more than two years. tits prabable
that the fact of its repeal was overlooked by
congress when the revision was adopted, and
1t is to be hoped that 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 de-
cides, that the question whether 5512 and
b515 of the revised statues of the United
States are repugnant to. and in violation of
the constitution of the United States should
be answered in the negative; that the ques-
tion as to the validity of section $50, of said
revised statutes, is unnecessary to be decided
inasmuch as the objection to the constitution
of the grand jury under that section was not
raised in due time; and that the remaining
iquestions namely, whether judgment of this
court could be rendered against the defend
ants on an indictment found by a grand jury
impaneled and sworn under the sections
aforesaid, and whether the indictment afore-
said charges any ohenses for which Judgment
could be rendered against the defendants in
this court under the constitution and laws of
the United States, should be answered in the
affirmative Opinion by Justice Bradley.
The other business transacted by the court
was as follows;
No. S92. A. NJ. Wyman, treasurer of the
United States, plaintiff in error, vs. The
United States OK rel. L. p. Halstead, admin
istrator, &c. Motion granted, and case as
signed for argument on first Monday in No
vember at the foot of the call.
No. 679. Lazarus Scharff ct al, plaintiffs in
error, VS.. James and Albert Levy. Motion to
advance granted.
No. $40. A. Austin Smith against Samuel
G. Greenhow. Motion to advance granted.
- No. $3.50, 971 and Y72 Thomas Poindexter,
William l.. White, and Samuel 8. Carter,
against Samuel G. Greenhow. Motion to ad-
vance denied. The four eases last named are
the new tax coupon cases from Virginia. The
court advanced the first one because it in
wolves the question of state or federal jurs-
diction. The other three present merely the
question whether a Virginia tax collector has
legal right to seize personal property foI
taxes after having refused to take coupons in
payment. In denying the motion to advance
these three cases the court said:
"The state of Virginia is not, in either of the
cases, party, and the execution OF the reve.
nue. laws has Mother been enjoined nor
stayed A tax collector has been sued for
alleged wrongs done to several plaintiffs
while he was engaged in the collection OF
taxes due the state, but he is not
in any way restrained from the
general discharge of his official duties The
questions involved may be of public impor'
tance, but that does not necessarily entitlt
the parties to a hearing in preference tC
others. Practically, every case that is ad
vanced postpones another that has been Oh
the docket three years, awaiting its turn in
The regular call. Under these circumstances
the court deems it its duty not to take up
case out of its order except for imperative
reasons"
Nos. 672 and 1047. II. G. G. Paulsen and
Gottfried Bachmann against the Chesapeak,
and OHIO Railway company ct al. Motion tC
advance denied.
No. 8 (the legal tender case). Augustus
Juillinrd against Thomas $. Greenman. Mo
tion to amend pleadings denied. "It is con
ccded" the court says, that the pleading.
on which the case was tried below are cor
rectly copied in the transcript. The motion
now is to amend these pleadings so as to make
them more definite and certain. This We
cannot do because it requires the exercise ol
original jurisdiction. Cases here must bG
heard on the record sent up from below"
No. 20l. The United States, plaintiff, VS.
James Hamilton. On certificate of division
OF opinion between the judges of the circuit
court of the United States for the middle
district of Tennessee. Dismissed for want Of