The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-29

the defendants and their attorneys, strongly
surmssed that the Judges decision would be
| against them.
The Orange County Cases.
| The Orange county cases are seven in number,
the defendants being John McBosley, Joseph
Moore, Eleazer Pierce two indictments,
Thomas Ritter John Stout, Amos Stout aud
Alfred Holiday The Judges opinion in the
| Orange county cases was as follows:
The in each is laid in Orange county, in
the Second congressional district in Indiana and the
several charges predcated upon Section So of
the federal Revised Statutes the section far as
| relevant reading follows. The Judge here read
the statutes. The substance of the charge against
McBosey is that at the election for Representative i'll
Congress, held on the I'd day of November, 1886 he
voted unlawfully in township and precinctin which
Moore is charged with having unlawfully procured
and advised McBosley to vote illegally. 1t is charged
against Pierce that he prevented voter from voting
in case by paying him s. and in the other by Civ
ing him quart of whisky to ballot at said pre-
cinct at said election aforesaid then and there con-
tanning the names of certain candidates for certain
| offices therein ned. among which was the of
said Pierce candidate for the Office of sheriff Of
said county the description Of said ballot and the
names thereof, except the name of Pierce, afore-
| said being unknown to the grand - jury.
Ritter is charged with counseng and assisting Pierce
to bride voter with money charged in the first in
dctment against Pierce. John Stout is charged with
| bribng voter named Edward Hammond by paying
| him SIS to cast ballot containing the name of said
| Stout as candidate for auditor of Orange county
the grand jury being uniformed in respect the other
names upon the ballot. 1t is charged that Holiday
and Amos Stout counseled and assisted John Stout to
| bride Hammond. The objection is made to each of
these indictments that it doesn't show that the I'M
lawful or tainted ballot contained the of any
candidate person voted for for Representative in
Congress- that the voter by reason of the bride
voted refrained from voting voted otherwise
than without the bride he would have voted in respect
TO that Office This objection is predicated upon but
| IN; cd hvf ba
be conceded, that the power of Congress under the
| fourth clause of the first article of the
! federal Constitution to make regulations and
to declare offcnses in respect to elections
at which Representatives in Congress voted for is
| limited to such matters acts and conduct do or
may affect designed to affect the election of such
Representative and does not extend to matter
duct having exclusive reference to the choice of local
| or State officers.
When congressional and local elections are held at
the time and places and mixed ballots cast as is
the practice in Indiana, it is misleading refinement
think. to say that there two elections national
and State, held atthe same time. 1t is one election
for the conduct of which the two soveregntes have
though interested in several results
| lex parte Siebod. Tooth Z. 81 And Congress hav-
ing the unquestoned, paramount and if 1t fit the
exclusive power to regulate such elections must in
the first instance at least determine for itself what
regulations necessary eXpedent; and it is not
the province of the courts to restrict annul any
actment on the subject the ground that it is not
within the powers of Congress unless it be demon
strabe that in no event and under no conceivable cir
cumstances the ofense defined be and coming within
the letter and spirit of the enactment could affect the
| election for Representative in Congress.
The offenses of voting illegally and of bribery at
elections, denounced in Section 5511. consist in
| the doing of things which are forbidden. without
reference to the intention of the offender and by
Section 55l4 it is expressly provided that if the Of
tense have reference ballot cast in State where
the names Of candidates for Congress and candidates
for local Offices may be placed upon the
ticket ballot the proof in respect to the ballot will
be prima facie sufficient to commit if it be shown that
| the ballot is which the of the candidate
\ for Congress- might have been nut.
1t may readily be shown that illegal ballots in the
| boxes even though they contain the of no one
voting for Representative in Congress- especially
where in this State there is and under the Con-
| stituton can be. certain means Of knowing by
whom a particular ballot cast, might seriously
| complicate afford the means opportunity for
contesting the result of congressional election which
| otherwise would be undsputed. The indictment may
charge that the cast ballot without the name
of candidate For Congress upon it, but in of
election 1t would be open to question and dispute
whether that ballot was cast by one person an
| other.
In respect TO the charges of bribery in addition to
the considerations already advanced it must be evil
dent general principles that Congress has the right
to forbid the presence at any federal election of all
forms of force threats intimidation bribery used
to prevent any qualified voter from freely exercising
the right of suffrage and where congressional cleo
tons and elections for State and local officers held
at the time and place, and especially where the
of candidates for Congress and candidates for
local Offices put upon the ticket it is manifest
that regulations and restrictions which prompted in
qury whether the offender in such respects intended
to ntimdate influence the conduct of voters in
| spect to Office candidate another would be
| inefficient because easily effected.
| Once concede that the Indictment for bribery of
voter in order to be good under the federal statute
| must charge intent to affect the congressional
election and the speedy result will be not less bribery
in respect to that election, but likely large in
crease contrived and conducted in such way as to
prevent proof of the real purpose by preenses of diff
ferent purposes. 1t may be said however, that this
is only question of proof and that if the government
cannot prove It's it ought not to have it. But the
point is that the law need not bethe Constitution
fcult or impossible proofs of any offenses. Indeed
| the definition of bribery contained
| in this statute shows evident de-
| sign to escape such difficulties The
ofense does not consist in inducing the voter by a
bride to vote particular ticket to vote for
frain from voting for against particular person
candidate; but like force, threats and intimation
bribery is treated preventing the voter from
cisng freely his right of suffrage and in this view it
Is evidently immaterial whether the bride was paid
for particular purpose another because the
theory of law, as we'll of reason and experience
the voter who has accepted bride for purpose
untitled for the right exercise OF the election fran
chise for any purpose.
| In my Judgment, therefore ii was not necessary
| that the indictment for illegal voting should have
any person voted for for representative in Congress-
nor was it necessary that in the bribery cases it
should be charged that candidate for Congress was
voted for, that the hribe was given with intent
to influence the voters action in respect to Congress-
man; and if right in this, it follows that the in
averments in respect TO name which
| the ballots are shown to have contained.
Except descriptive of the ballot these averments
would seem to be immaterial even concedng that
they warrant inference that the alleged bride
given for the vote for the person named. What