Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-05-04

The remark Of my friend that the
supervisors are not alone III pari paSsu
with the state officers bnt even paramount
to them is monstrous. We might as well.
under such construction give right up and
hand over the whole local and state cleo
tons to the supervisors.
The right Of the registrars, the judicial
one, TO decide on the status of a tax reCe ut,
bears with il also the right to say whether
they shall allow the supervisors to handle
the tax receipts or not
Mr. BiggS closed with reference to the
defendants position in that rs there was
no criminal intent there was, therefore,
no crime
District Attorney Watson then closed
the case.
Judge Wales said there were two ques-
tons to cnnsder-whether Colonel Macal-
lister had the power TO issue the instruc-
tons in question. and IL he had the
power then the position Of the defendant
when refusing 10 obey: aud, secondly, the
feature of criminal intent in Gimder's
action.
The court stated that previous to giving
the charge he would order recess to . r. IN.
In delivering his charge in the after
noon itf tile United States court Judge
Wales reStated TO the Jury the words Of the
indictment as found by the grand Jury
that the defendant INSTRUCTED hindered
tage from personally inspecting the tux re-
eeipts, which receipts are the evidence uf a
citizens right to register and also To vote.
on the iirst day OF registration there WAS
no examination Of receipts, but SUBSEQUENT
TO the 10th OF October there was evidence
brought 70 thiet supervisor Macalister of
fraudulent tax receipts being III existence
and he ordered the supervisors to examine
the receipts for date, number and the
initials Of the collector. This vas done
under instructions issued by Mr.. Mucal-
lister
On october 22i Supervisor Heritage re.
queste,i 20 have the receipts for his per
sonal inspection under these instructions
and according tot the Congressional statute.
Register ttinder refused, replying that he
should neither handle nor examine them.
The question is whether Col. Mucallster
had the authority TO issue these instrne.
tons. Another question is if the chief
supervisor had not Issued these instruc-
lions. whistler still the supervisor had not
the right to call for them. Section 2ulG Of
the Revised statutes makes it the duty If
the Supervisor 10 personally inspect and
scrGtini2e in such manner rs will enable
nun 10 detect or expose any wrongful
change, removal Or placing Of il name. sec.
ton 2lls, referring Ia election day, SAYS
that the supervisor shall personally scan
each ballet. section ~" SAYS that the
supervisor is authorized to take, occupy
and remain, from time TO time at such
place as i'll his Judgment shal best enable
nm To see each person Offering himself
for registration
The defence Is that Gindcr acted under
advice from counsc! aud did not act with
criminal intent. cannot understand how
COUNSEL gave him the advice they did til re-
gard "a personally handling. It Is true
that the statute does not say the sIpcr.
VISOR snail handle tax receipts 5nt con.
gress did not contemplate tax receipts as a
qualifying condition.
" thls point the court Was ready to
place the case in the hands Of the Jury.
MIR. bigss Tor the defence arose and
stated that he ana his Co!lcagUe Had no
idea that the jury were to consider only
the law in the case aud to the exclusion of
any consideration Of the evidence the
latter on the ground that the act Of refusal
as hyerred i'll the indictment had been con.
coded on both sides, and that all that had
now 10. be considered by the Jury was to
be the law on the point. The court stated
he dld not wish to make any snap udg.
lnent. The defence was permitted 10 With
draw one Of the jurors.
j. Jackson PIERCE was withdrawn and
the court ordered new trial ii CilRder.
John j, hindcr was then arraigncd
anew. The same Jury was drawn again
with but two or three exceptions. William
A. liuklll, one of the election officers was
placed on the stand and testified to the
TACT ot the defendants refusing the eXarni-
nation ri the receipts. Supervisor Heritage
also testified. Counsel obtained from the
witnesses the story OF the motion under
which the registration officials took action
| preventing the supervisors from handling
! the receipts
Willard salisbury testified that John h.
finder called Oh him and was given adj
| vice rs TO his duties under the Macalllster
! circular. He told him and the other regis
! trars not to allow the supervisors to handle
| the tax receipts The rest Of the witness
| testimony was similar to that Of Thursday.
/ Court then adjourned 10 ~ o'clock Friday
| morning.
In court Friday morning Mr.. Biggs in.
formed judge Wales that the defence in
| the Ginder case had closed
District Attorney Watson then aG-
dressed the jury and afterwards ad.
| dressed the court. He asked ,Iu1gn
Wales to instruct the jury that the law
| under which the defendant Is cited is
constitutional; that Colonel Macallister
had the right 10 issue the circulars in
| question, and that even if he had not,
! the supervisors themselves had full
| right 10 handle the receipts. The Gle.
ment Of intent is not to be brought into
the question. The statute is silent upon
| that point
Nlr. Lyman then addressed the Jury.
| After recOunting the evidence in this
case counsel stated that some of the I'll.
| legged facts III the ccse are not admitted.
| The contention is that Mr.. Ginder did
not hinder Supervisor Heritage from
scrutinzing the receipts. There is no
| testimony that the receipt was concealed
from the supervisor. Supervisor Heritage
| did not demand the handling Of the IL.
ceipts. lie was in a position, sitting
| alongside tho defendant, to see all that
was necessary for taking the date, num-
Der and initials on the receipts, as il is
| claimed for the supervisor.
Mr.. Blggs first addressed the court
| on the phrase manner" in section 2Ol6,
| affecting the question in dispute, the
construction placed upon it by the de
| fence and the gentlemen who advised
the defendant. 1t is that the SUPER.
visors shall inspect the manner of the
conduct Of the registry BY the State
| officers.
Mr.. Biggs then addressed the Jury.
| lie stated that John Il. Ginder, accord.
ing 10 all the testimony, did not hinder
supervisor Heritage in 4 single instance
from scrntinizing tax receipts. Also,
there was not Il single instance brought
forward to prove that tax receipt was
definitely or in any way refused to
Heritage's inspection at the registration.
There is no allegation in tic Indictment
that Supervisor Heritage had the right
Y take the tax receipts in his hands.
There Is no testimony even that he
made such demand. There is not a
particle Of evidence but that Heritage