The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-05-16
THEY MUST GO TO PRISON
NO RELIEF COMES FROM WASHINGTON
The United States Supreme Court, Justice
Fields Dissenting, Affirm the Rulings
Below in the COy-Bernhamer
Case-They Take il Coolly.

WASHINGTON, d. c.. May 14.-TSpecial.] !
The supreme court to-day handed down its de-
cision in the election conspiracy case. The de-
cisions of both Judge Woods and Justice Har-
Ian are affirmed in all material forms. Justice
Miller wrote the opinion, Justice Field dissent
ing.
The opinion is voluminous and much of it is
devoted to a review Of the case in its several
aspects. The question of jurisdiction is treated
at considerable length. Justice Miller made
~'rong analogous statement in answer to the
argument of the defendants counsel
that because the vote for congressman
was not affected the federal court
had not jurisdiction. He said that if man
should shoot at one in a crowd and kill another
he could just as well claim immunity against
the crime of manslaughter on the ground that
he had not killed the man upon whom he had
designs, as one could hold that he was not
amenable TO the federal laws for altering the
returns from a county or state election, although
these were on the same tally-sheets
as the returns of votes upon a federal
officer. The fact that the election of
the federal officer was not affected was not the
question at issue. The sheet on which were
the returns for federal officer was mutilated,
and this the law forbade. The crime against the
government was as poignanta as though the vote
for congressman was changed. The whole sheet
was desecrated when one figure was changed.
Specifically the court in its decision says that it
was the omission of the duty imposed by the
state law upon the inspectors to safely keepthe
certified list of voters with the returns of the
judges and deliver them TO the county clerk or
board of eanvassers that constitutes the founda-
ton of this proceeding.
The L. 5. statutes confer authority to punish
a conspiracy to prevent or interfere with the
security or protection of elections for repre-
sentatives to congress by proceedings in the
federal court The difficulty arises from
the fact that congress has RENTED
to the state the duty of providing
for such elections. When a member of con-
gress is elected from a state he is voted for at
an election at which ballots are cast for a great
number of state and other local officers. The
anomalous condition makes the question of the
applicability of the laws of congress upon
the subject somewhat complex, but the power
of congress to make such provision as may be
necessary for the honest conduct of such an
election and the proper return OF the vote can
not be questioned"
Touching the contention of counsel that the
indictment does not aver intent by the defend
ant to affect the election of member of cong
ress that the evil intent is not shown to have
been specifically aimed at the returns of
the vote for congressman, the court says that
the law is violated whenever the evidences con-
corning the votes cast are exposed or subjected
in the hands of improper or unauthorized
persons TO the opportunity for their Justification,
whether they actually did so or not, or whether
the purpose of the party in taking them from
their proper custody and exposing them to such
danger might accomplish this result. The lam
guage of the act of congress clearly does not
require, I'm regard 10 some of the acts of omis
sion and failure TO perform the duties imposed
upon election officers, that there should be al
legged or proved an intention to give an oppOr-
tunity for improper tampering with the records
of the votes cast.
The court does not doubt that the indictment
sets forth a conspiracy by the parties TO the
appeal TO induce the inspectors of election in
Indianapolis to omit the discharge of their
duty, and to fail to safely keep the lists and
papers, nor does it doubt that the s,rtute of
Indiana imposes such a duty upon zesese in
spectors which they were induced to
violate by the parties to this con-
spiracy. The court believes that the contrO-
versies respecting the statutes of Indiana and
acts of congress were questions properly before
the district court, over which that court had
jurisdiction, and which it was its duty to de-
eide.