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

federal elections, must be so construed The
affidavit upon which the defendants are held
does not charge that the offense was against the
election of a representative in Congress and
therefore, they ought to be discharged. The
argument was then adjourned until the after
noon.
The afternoon session of the examination
began with the reply of Capt. Eli Ritter on be-
half of the government Referring to Mr. Smiths
remarks of the morning attempting to discredit
and belittle him in the case because of his ap-
pearance as the attorney representing the citi-
zens committee, Mr.. Ritter spoke briefly, SAYING
that he had right so to appear, and moreover, he
appeared in his own behalf as a citizen. In his
argument as to the crime under con-
sideration he quoted Sections SSH,
5515 and $40 of the United States
Statutes and Tooth United States Supreme Court
reports, pages 37l and 500, the latter being the
cases of Seebold, of Baltimore. and Clark, of
Cincinnati, charged with like crime to that
charged against the defendants in this case. He
also referred to the Mackin case. and
Judge Biodgett's decision had not
been overruled by Judge Gresham
and the United States Supreme Court. Capt
Ritter's point was that the tally-sheets ballots
ETC., are to be taken as q whole and that any
change. whether upon the vote of the Congress
man or elsewhere upon the ticket, is a change of
the whole. He also quoted from DGstay, page
$40, to show that the United States Commits
sioner had authority in cases like that now be-
fore Commissioner Van Buren,.
He was followed by the United States deputy
attorney, who said he would submit the case on
the argument made by Captain Ritter. Mr..
Duncan, for the defense, replied to Captain
Ritter, showing that the State, and not the
United States, had jurisdiction in cases like
that before the Commissioners; that the United
States only seeks to do any thing where the cleo
ton of a Representative or Delegate to Congress
is actually involved.
Commissioner Van Buren-The language of
the statute does not say the effect must be to
change the result N the election Of Congress
men.
Mr.. Duncan-No, but 1t says such action must
have the effect to change the result. 1t is
charged that the tally sheets and certificates
were changed, but not that any change was
produced to the vote for Congressman
And in suchk cases the State has the exclusive
right in reference to the election of State and
county officers. This is not a federal crime
This proceeding is an unheard-of one in view of
the fact that the same crime has been thorough
ly investigated by the grand jury and that grand
jury failed to return an indictment.
Mr. Van Buren-It does not occur to me that
am to take cognizance of anything the grand
jury may have done. The question is, whether
this was exclusively crime committed in that
part of the election referring only to State Off
GERS, whether the mutilation would be a
crime committed against the United States;
whether the mutilation of a certificate contain
ing the names of all the persons voted for is a
crime against the United States or only against
the State. | will give decision In this matter
on Tuesday at 2 o'clock P. NJ. The witnesses
will not return until that hour.