Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-04-23
II WAS NOT A CRIME.
.or uIeHss so DECIDES IN THE
W. OOcoysoN-WARo ELECTION CASES.
ami. ouashed Because Too General
i'o". .,m.-The specific Charges Did
" No, Constitute an onence.


r,;,cd States Circuit Court yes
IN uJ I,1rc Robert W. Hughes delivered
tF'H,. living opinion in what are CON-
BE ''i'n 't,oVn as the Jackson-War cleo
roap r.'1s s which have been pending since
g. =, months after the Wise-waddill con-
i"..,s,l contest Of 1885,
Ct''a' -,-rs CgcrIr congratulated States ..
INr'p r,'r.a. n al, three indictments United
Ff S. T.. PGl'csoa tai, teco indictments;
Nft' .,I,ss rs. A.. y. 0pi9oR et al; United
fs,. W. u Sephens ct a.
Sa' ,Sp DECISION oV guDGS HUGnEs
"''.y..,,, Indictments stand upon motion
ftc., .rd nrcr fun argument am 20 pass
t9so '.nl .lj,d mat all Of the indictments are
70 ~, sl.tion 5J0d of the Revised Statutes
tss3 "a Sfaics, which provides for the pun
,tHe !, .s .gery person who, by any unlawful
itlf', .a,-s. delays, prevents, or Obstructs, or
pesos L.sJ r5utoderat With others. 20 hinder,
CO. ,rrrni or obsiruct any citizen from
t,al. ,ry election IN any state, Territory,
t.., -,ty or parish
t--' WHAT Is CHARGED.
,,,.ss indictments charge that the per-
~. y g...f nhom they are brought did hinder,
-, 's,sy,Ut and obstruct Sundry persons,
tal' ~ named, from voting AZ tho election
49,. Yrst precinct Of jackson Ward, In
f.. gE.remoud, on the 9TH day Of November,
t.irs election of member Of the Fifty
i''N' I- --,'ss Of the United States and also
f-i '' -, ma o,,raons indicted did uninwfully
tNt srI confederate with zach other %
r.t.'s "a. frryent and obstrnct sundry citi-
f-,r voting a. the said election. Two OF the
- l.-ts ..rf.iu only the latter charge
,.-,r 90 luash Is made on grounds which
la. ..fs-.urc O. the form and structure OF
t'. ...fuarts. and also on grounds apparen;
f-., az those instrumental. / viii deal
.,,,a f-si class OF objections before consider
bi q. .,7s.aI objection Of the FIRST class is,
.a t. t-OGof The Revised Statutes was a
-' ...r congress had no authority 20 pass;
t' ....ir-r tl1t acts committed In violation
-rt within the Cugnizance OF this court.
-.f fnr'. ir the case Of United States ..
''1 D. ~..I4 the supreme Court, Chief
tge..r delivering the opinion, pronounced
t-'. -.r -s.tisuof the enforcement act Of May
,,-. .af rh Is IDENTICAL with section 5506 Of
F.. -...4 >'.tItrsI, unconstitutional and
" ..-.f d. urCluafitutioual the other IL 80 by
.. ..r .....a1ucNce This court has already
ga tl.s DhertiOn. We treated II 80 fully
.r...f rprli states q. AuntOTd e. al, 10
r. a1g tho circuit and district Judges
f,.-.rg prinious, that | now need only
..,..I..r grs said In that case. Chief-Jus-
r,.ts vas th0n a member OF this court,
-.I present. and it is hardly 10 be sup
.r., ,ar opinions rendered by the two
~. ...-.-. Who may be presumed 70 have
.-.I. g.rv-. were in conflict with anything
-. ,sfri Justice had said in the case Of
QUESTION or JURISDICTION
.-... .s--.. sar which Rcsse was tried was COM
.. ,.r. progress Of n municipal election,
.t.t ,lr Federal court that tried him
.fr.r. l4l mo- jurisdiction, unless given 10y
.r-r'iH01l at Of Congress. No consti-
..-.r. statute could Dee passed by Congress re-
. ...~ ~t.tt and municipal elections, except
4, -. cypress purpose Of protecting voters
.-...rc r.rIrrci or prevented from voting
. ....-. Ui their race, color, or former slave
. -.. Dry Of May, 1870, contained no such
,...t.r. and was, therefore, held TO be inap-
.r.s o. a municipal election. But II Is
. .r irwrr. however, 10 contend that
..... .r .rt U' Congress has no constitutional
.....r, fr relation 20 a State election, there
II. 10 tr-rg such warrant when applied 20 a
..-'-.s7..-7I election. The argument on this
.... b. fI..v elaborated In tho case OF United
-. e. Nuhld, and need not be repeated
-, ..r- ease o.. United states e. CrukshdHk et
.'..r - 600. another section OF the enforce
r... a-fni 1870 was brought In review, which
e. r.r.lnrei unconstitutional on grounds
g.. ....I- 90 those alleged in ReeSe's case.
-f.H,-cs Of tie United states .. H05Tts, 1O6
r> frg and OF EHI8triR z. Franks, l20 I. s.,
,-, -r.f Nv tho defence IN tho cases at bar,
,.--s#.rrn the c0nstitutiOnaiiiy Of the second
..-.r 6' The net 0i Congress Of 2Oth OF April,
',-r r..rIy Identical with which Is section OBl9
.-r.r .s ocrcEiOusy and palpably unconstitu-
f-.r q. tf- face. But neither Ia its origin nor
Pep s'U-y has Is any relation 20 or analogy with
,at.r 5000 of tho Revised Statutes, under
vrt the indictments Gt bar are brought. IL
rrr.' Ia reasonably contended that because IL
vvf4vaYI the competency Of Congress 70 pass
v.hs, 90 was therefore beyond its power 90
f.,, another law unlike the first 10 purpOrt and
i.--f-a. The decisions In tho cases Of Harris
l.If BrtyiU q. Franks do not therefore rule
t.-a We now have under consideration.
fHE TAYLOR INCIDENT.
Aa-hcr ground on which the motion 30 quash
cse Indictments j. based Is thus stated by
ra-.aL lhayc somewhat abbreviated the last
aTtlt ". Y. TAYLOR, the foreman OF tho said
'Csl5 Jury, "a originally constituted, was tho
'T-0-f lfiug witness in the case against them,
-lrt mo United States Commissioner who IS
'.~' ffe warrants Of arrest for the said de-
-'e1ial's, and that the said W. II. Taylor had
.a-nrI and expressed an opinion as to the
"rt' Or innocence Of the said defendants, ana
-ufs hereby disqualified 10 act as grand
''.ru' Boz this case; moreover, because the said
'h H Taylor was irregulnrly removed from the
'--la1 ,lry after the said grand jury hau been
t'rHsle.si and swO-n and he had been ap-
'-'s! foreman thereof and because after
'uls.-R new foreman was appointed" all OF
.. lr."Tl lncs yitiated the grand Jury.
Uitaa allegations In this statement may
T-ly lIi re true There Is no proof Of them
5a'-a tsa court. What actually transpired In
Uf- a.grt Uss a- follows, 80 far as i can recall
O.. circumstances after lapse OF twelve
,-Hs.
ne grand Jury we're duly empanered on the
| ATu 1880. They retired and were IN SEES
t-'' time on NAT day, but brought In no IN
--rli-. uu the next morning, after their
'.-- ha1 been called, Taylor, the foreman,
l.Hus Court something 70 the effect OF his
I.7f 1c.rl as commissioner OF the Unltcd
'i.- .lTIt Court In the cases of several per-
..'.tirf with violations Of the election laWsat
af-.sa at-iN,tiru, anitbat he had become aware
Pee. violations we're TO be made the SUD
... la'e- rfatlJu before this grand jury. lie
--'.''e asked because Of his previous connec-
.'a these election cases 10 be excused IRON
...-.- -erTi'c Oh tne jury. Taylor was excused
81 --Ll-rnl and another member OF the
.-.l .fy was sworn Is foreman, and the Jury
-l' 60 ilei. room ana proceeded with their
..-.-'a'0aS This was on the 9th Aprl, on
'-h Gay Indictment No. 40 was brought In
..t next day indictment No. I'll was found;
-'- tl April Nps. 1l3 and 714 were found
- i'l Apd, No. 71j, aud on the 18th Aprll
W. 10 a'i tl9 were found.
.'' see % these occurrences anything 10
'. ar El.iity Of the grand jury which found
. ,|tnis, or Of It's proceedings.
JUNCTION or TIE GRAND JURY.
.a.'.r..a Of the grand jury is not 10 try
rr-- arl-.t ~ crimes, but merely 90 exam
.N..'frT ana what crimes have been commit
o.. a-t 'la persons az whom the evidence points
...l'. alI, by Indictment, 10 charge such
10 a' '1-e tlc court and country as answer
ita crimes which have been committed
.-.Al! '-arG Jurors were chosen Tor the puf-
E'it testimony 20 their fellow-iurors as
, committed within tho county. III
.4 .tNg sees one man murder another nc
'-'iy % that fact 20 the jury OF
'-..a Lr BE- part, without thereby dlsqualifylng
i 30 10 Co.'S grand juror. Grand jurors are
'''- u. their r8J d5e 10 say whether they
.",N-1 OF expressed an opinion OF Ihe
go f .H.'ronce Cf person charged Wild
r On '.H contrary the court charges eacn
t 1lruc 20 The attention Of the grand
o.. .I '' 'ras of which he may have any per
8.gl7e Tho grand jury does not Wy,
'lsrs with a view 20 trial The pe!iy
y .'. Ha other body does or can try the
tt'f offences.
~. aH examining magistrate or commits
disqualified % act Is grand juror upon
,'1' on by himself Hts examination Is
Wal tie Lgs no right 20 form en- opinion
~ ttl' Or inaoccnce Of an accused person
'a-. I9-' him for preliminary oxainlha-
49,, ltH vr.ght u evidence determines
-''i u' -oc- ed she'll be sent ON. In seh1-
.. ''lsDl Ia tho law pnesuines him lhho-
.-- requires the committing MAGISTRATE 70
a' t.u Innocent until convicted oy the
~. i.F br'gre whom he Is afterweru 70 DO
-iH. tr Lslyerance.
'-.t AT tails s true IN strict law YET IN the
OF impartial Justice II Is better tlat
s,. ~. .i'VE 'lHslI have had as little 70 90 WIN
49,. 81 hs Practicable Il IL IA 20 come beIore
- tl-y f1y examination. II was in the inter-
A., + Impartial justice, and not because, IN
q. -'' Taylor Was not as competent 70 act On
a., g.l4 Jury o. which be was foreman az
= ,--'T member Of IL, that he was e1cu5tu