The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-15

gres 70 protect the treasury by Furnishing such theft
and burglary Are the mails of the United States and
the money carried in them TO be left to the mercy of
ROBBERS and OF thieves who handle the mail because
.ne constitution contains no express words OF power
IN Congress to enact laws for the punishment of those
offenses The principle if sound wo:ld abolish the
entire criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the
United States and the laws which confer that iuris
dcon 1t is said that the States can pass the neees
sary laws on this subject and necessity exists for
such action by Congress But the existence Of State
laws Furnishing the counterfetng of the coin of the
United States. has been held to supersede the
acts of Congress passed for that purpose to Justify
the United States in failing TO enforce its own laws to
protect the circulation of the coin which it issues
II am of opinion that the statutes under con.
sideration are constitutional. We come now "a
the second question herein involved-that of the
jurisdiction of the United States to hear this
case Defendants counsel read from ex parte
Siebold, as follows, the words of the opinion:
I'VE do not mean to say however, that for any acts
of the officers of election having exclusive references
to the election of State and county officers they viii
be amenable to federal law; nor do we understand
that the enactments of Congress under considers
ton (Secs. 5311 and 5515) have any application to
such acts. Although Section 5510 is sufficiently
broad TO authorize conviction when the accused has
voted, or attempted to vote, in the name
OF another at any election for Representative in Con-
gress, irrespective of the fact whether he
voted or attempted to ote for such Representative
not it ought not to be construed, even if resort
could not be had to Section 551 for Interpretation
BILE grave doubt would be suggested whether Con.
had not transgressed its constitutional power by
creating oense which it is the exclusive province
of the State to create and punish It is for the
eral States to determine by their own laws how their
own officers shall be elected who may may not
vote for such officers and what acts of commission or
omission respecting the exercise of the elective fran.
chise in the election of such officers shall be criminal
Congress mas no power over these matters.
Defendants counsel further quoted from
the opinion in the case of the United
States VS.. Seaman; % Federal Reporter,
S82 You may remember on the argu.
ment / suggested that in the latter case the
election laws of the State OF New York might
have had some influence upon the decision there.
in. find such to be the fact, and in the sylla-
bus the distinction is clearly made, and refer
ence made to the fact that the Congressman
were voted for on separate ballots, and the ball
lots deposited in separate boxes. There was no
proof that the defendant had attempted to vote
for the Congressman, and the act complained Of
was attempting to vote under assumed name
for only county and State officers The court,
in holding it had no jurisdiction, said 49,
mo acts of Congress should be interpreted unless
the language admits of other interpretation
to press beyond the certain confines of constitutional
power United States vs.. Coombs, II Pet. 72i and
especially should this rule be observed in heinter
upon the border lire of national Jurisdiction. Snch
clearly would be the character of the statute ques
ton If it explicitly made it crime to vote attempt
to vote under an assumed name for State or county
officer at any election for Representative in Con-
gress. Such statute would not only be of doubtful
consttutionaiity but doubt is entertained that it
made criminal could in way affect the election
of Representative AS 1T MIGHT IN THOSE STATES
WHERE BALLOTS FOR THE STATE OR LOCAL OFFICERS
CONTAIN ALSO THE NAME OF THE CANDIDATE FOR
REPRESENTATIVES,.
LET US now look at the facts in the case be-
fore US. Tally-sheets and certificates contain
ing the names of Congressman have been reuti.
lated and altered and the question is, does such
mutilation relate to and have tendency to af-
feet the election of the Congressmen2 Not, does
it affect the result of his election, but does it
have any influence upon it'll Judge Woods, in
his charge to a grand jury on.Nov. s. 1886. said:
), These provisions you will observe in so far as
they relate to the elective franchise confined to
elections for Representatives Delegates in Con-
gress elections at which Representative or Dele
gate in Congress Is voted for 1t is this fact which
brings the subject within the powers of Congress-
regulate, and within the jurisdiction of the federal
courts to enforce such regulations Congress has
enacted. 1t is not necessary however, III order to
make a violation of the law that the acts committed
shall have been of such character to change or
affect the result of the election in respect to Repre-
sentative Delegate in Congress- that such should
have been the design Of the accused It is only
sary that the forbidden act conduct should have
been in respect to an election at which Eep~<e4ta-
tive or Delegate IN Congress was voted for.
sin the celebrated Mackin case an affidavit
was filed in several counts, one of which was
exactly similar to that here charged-alteration
and mutilation Of certificates In that case Of
fcers of an election had changed upon a certif-
cate figures relating to the vote of State
Senator. motion to quash this count in the
affidavit was overruled by Judge Blodgett
The case went to the Snpreme Court on
other question-on motion In arrest of judg-
ment-but the question as to whether a crime
against the United States had been committed
was not disputed. although this point could have
been raised by the motion in arrest. Judge
Blodgett in his charge to the jury in that case.
said: 30
when the certificates Of the result of an election
for member of Congress- any other Office for that
matter is altered in any material particular such
tifcate is legally destroyed and is longer evidence
of what it originally stated 1t is longer the docu
nent which the judges and clerks signed, but it Is
different document, and makes different statement
Chicago Legal News. Feb. %, 1889
SIN view of such authority and instruction
cannot but say that the acts complained of in
the affidavit constitute an offense against the
United States. The alterations of the certificates
which are prir8a facie evidence of the results of
the election, certainly detract from their credit
il they do not wholly destroy their value as evil
dence. Fasus in uno, falsus in omnibus MY
decision is that l can examine the defendants
upon the charges alleged in the affidavit"
At the conclusion of the reading of the ruling
the deputy United States attorney said the gov
eminent was ready to proceed mr. Duncan,
for the defense, said he would waive an examin-
alton. Commissioner Van Buren, said he would
rule to proceed with the examination of the wit
nesses. Mr.. Duncan said: II think your honor
has committed an error but it is one of which
we cannot avail ourselves"
Ex-County Clerk McLain, United States Clerk
Butler and the United States deputy attorney,
custodans of the books, tally sheets, etc. relat-
ing to the November election, were directed TO
bring in the papers in theig custody. This req
quest was changed so that in order to avoid con-
fusion only the papers and books relating to the
second precinct Of the Fourth ward were
brought before the Commissioners and taken up,
Mr. McLain and Mr.. Butler having first testified
how the papers came into their possession and
what they were
The first witness called was Otto Beizer who
lives in the second precinct Of the Fourth ward,
and acted rs clerk at that precinct at the No
vember election. He testified that he kept one
of the poll-books. He said: AFTER we got
through counting. that is. tallying, Mr. McGee
took one Of the poll-books and Mr.. Abel Davis
took the other, and as we counted up the talies
they were written on the polbooks while we
war ha fallv-shaafa The dnnlicAka