Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-04-23

hafnsbQrg, and y az Aloxaudria. ana that A +,
es,.,, ~ n, ana =, combined and confedcrated with
.aen 49, Osner 70 commit these several offences But
,he indictments charge that A, Is, g, ID. u. ana
y combined and confederated with each otbey Id
n1naer, delay, and prevent certain citizens from
,,vtine on the 9th Nov EN- Der nt jackson Ward In
Richmond In a congressional election ana that
tnose same persons did then and there hinder.
oelay, and prevent the said citizens from voting
at mat place IN this said election. A ioinder of
,4is Ike g ih thls manner OF conspiring 10 CON-
inis ana OF committing misdemeanor by the
same persons at the same place puts no hard.
SNIP upon the accused, who eau defend them
selves IRON one Of the charges without any req
s9hhple onbarTassmcnt from having ct the same
time 20 defend themselves from the other. Such
gcinder OF charges may be permitted for the
sake OK convenience without violence 10 the
policy OF to the humanity Of tho law. And
heretore am OF opinion that the five indict-
ments containing tbIs toinderof charges are not
asSnilablo on account 81 that fact.
THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTION.
coming homo 70 the principal objection urged
against theSS indictments II Is complained that
the charges they mako are In vague, general
terms. without such special avcrments as arc
required by the rules Of criminal pleading: AZ
are necessary to put the defendants on notice OF
what they are 20 meet by evidence; and as
Identify the offences charged with such pre-
cision that upon aoqnittal or conviction the &C.
cused may not be brought 70 future trial for the
same offences In othar prosecutions.
Two OF the indictments charge In the general
fdiNuAEe Dl ttftlOn pgNh that AT tho pleCtiOu
which has been described the accused did unIaw-
iully combine and confederate with each other
70 hinder, delay, prevent, and obstruct certain
persons named from voting at the said election,
hdulng nothing To show by what acts and methods
the hindering and obatruciing was done: nothing
TO show the Court that the acts were within the
puryieW OF the statute; nothing 70 give tho ac-
cused notice OF the proofs that he was called
upon 10 meet; nothing 10 50 Identify the offence
thnt IL could not be made tho subject Of future
prosecution. think the ruling Of the Supreme
Court In the case OF United states @. CrDikshaak,
w U: =, 629, governs the two indictments al
luded 70.
RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED.
II was there decided that in criminal cases
prosecuted under the laws Of the United States
the accused has the constitutional right under
tho sixth amendment "to be informed Of the
nature and cause" of tho accusation. It nc.
cordingly held that the indictment must set
forth the offence with certainty, and that
every ingredient Of which the crime ls COM
posed must be clearly alleged. II held TINT
where the definition Of an offence, whether nj
common law or by statute, includes generic
terms IL Is not sufficient that the Indictment
shall charge the offence In the same generic
terms as In the statute, but must "descend TO
particulars" In It's facts and leading features
CrutLshGHEs case Is on all fOurs with the case
nj bar and rules II. The verdict on trial being
simply guilty or not guilty the indictment must
inform the Court Of the facts charged, so that II
may decide whether they are sufficient TO sup
port conviction If one should be had. This Is
elementary Law, and In criminal jurisprudence
IL Is Of fundamental importance. There can be
no doubt, therefore, that indictments Nos. 710
and I'll are defective and must be queshed.
The other five indictments under consdera-
tiOn contain each two counts, the second Of which
In each Is Identical In form with the single count
embraced In indictments numbers 71O and I'll.
These second counts In each OF the five indict-
ments are therefore governed by the ruling in
CrUikshGaks case, and must be quashed
There remain, therefore, for consideration only
the first counts In zach Qf the five indictmentG
numbers 7l3, 7l4, 10, ZIG, and III.
THE TERMS TOO GENERAL.
These are nearly alike In language and struc-
ture. They charge that the accused persons
hindered, delayed, and prevented certain per-
sons named from voting at the election described
and they contain each additional clauses intend
ed 10 indicate the means by which the hinderfng,
&C., was done. But these additional clauses ore
themselves drawn in such general terms as fail
20 improve upon the main charge OF hindering,
delaying, preventing, aud obstructing. For In
stance, the charge Of hindering IL reinforced by
the specification that the accused unlawfuny
challenged the voters named in the Indictment
Except in.forts, arsenals, and places belonging
TO the United States, and on the high seas, nc
offences can be committed against the United
States except those which are declared 10 be Of
fences by express act OF Congress- To char
lenge voter, even 70 unlawtully challenge q
voter, even in a Federal election, Is not a crime
against the United States cOgniZable In Fede~
raj court. To hinder voter from voting In a
Federal election Is. Therefore, when IN indict-
ment charges too generally that the accused hln-
dered voter from voting II does not and cannot
cure the defect Of that charge TO specify that the
hindering was by means Of challenging voters.
The specification Is as general as the main
charge, and only weakens II.
The indictments also go on, after making a
general charge Of delaying voters in casting their
votes, 70 specify that the accused did /" consume
the time for conducting the election by putting
frivolous interrogatiOns" 10 certain persons
named who offered TO vote. Now TO unlawfully
delay voter In voting Of federal election ls a
crime against the United States, but " to con-
sumo the time for conducting an election by
frivolous or other questions Is not a federal
crime, and il cannot help charge OF delaying
voter In voting, which is defective by reason OIL
generality, 10 specify that II was effected by con-
suming time by frivolous questions, Tor one
charge is as general as the other.
NOT CRIME.
Again, these indictments, after charging in
general terms that the accused prevented ana
obstructed certain voters from voting, go on 10
speCify that the accused "dld unlawfully create
disorder by pushing, and doing and saying many
other disorderly, improper, and illegal thlhgs 70
the persons Offering 10 vote" Here, again, IL ~
10 be remarked that unlawfully creating disor-
der by unlawfully pushing, and doing ana say
ing Improper things 10 voters Is noI crime
against the United States; and even II IL were,
is as general as the charge OF preventing ana
obsfructing. Such an allegation gives no preci-
sion 10 a general charge Of preventing ana op-
structing voters, and fails TO cure its tauit.
The objection 10 these several specifications Is
that they are themselves too general, that they
do not "descend 20 particulars that they are
specifications which do not specify. =.
II does not help the too great generanty Oh
charge of unlawful hindoriDg, ospecify Benerai-
ly thot n was done by unlawful challenging. Nor
does n help the defect OF general charge OF de-
LAYING 10 specify generally that the time lor con-
duc1inR the election was unlawfully consumed py
friyolous interrogations Nor does II improve q
general charge OF preventing and obstrnctlng 70
speclfy generally that it was done by unlaWiuny
rushing, &c. Two generalties do not make one
Nv opinion and decision is that, In this respect,
all the indictments are ruled by the decision OF
the Snnreme Court in the case OF the Uhtted
states D. CrtqkshGRk et al, and must therefore DC
quashed. 80. ..,,,, ,o,-pr
The following was entered as the order Of the
Court: r,,., S..,os h1
,hcir atfofneys, and the defendants likewise
ond tbe Court having maturely considered ihe
,not,ons of the defendants to Quash these indict,
Yccnts and the arguments Of counsel, Is oi
n,inion for reasons stated in writing ana hleu
,lii,b the record that the motions OF the deiend'
ants 10 ouash these indictments must De sus.
Tatned it h therefore ordered by the Courl
,hat these indictments be, and the same are
hereby, auashed, and that the deIehuahts "
tbereof without day. Ro. w. HUGHES, Judge
Richmond, April ~, ls9l'
THE FORGED KANSAS CHECK.