Year: 1870

But If the authority existed, how strange
il would seem, how low and debased the
States rEOHld have become, when tue
Congress Of the United States without
waiting to see whether any State will be
derelict in its duty, without waiting to
see whether any State officers will refuse
to obey the Constitution of the United
States, introduce a bill of pains and PEN
alties like this, that bristles in every sec
tiOn with fine and imprisonment and re-
wards TO be given to infOrmers. II
me to,caN the attention Of the
lawyers OF the Senate to auOther thing.
What is the corpus oeIici i'll this sec
ton? What is the Offense in this see
ton? What are the substantive words
that ereateit, sud that must be fused in
an indictmeiit Under this section, for
here is an indictable Offense? That if
Hany officer shall refuse or knowingly
omit to give full effect to this section >
these are the words which define the
crime. Now, Il pray the learned
gentleman OF the Judiciary Committee
who has charge of this bill Mr.. Stewart
to tell Us what is failing or Omitting or
refusing to give f1lEefieetz tOAthis sec
ton. I hope he will enlighten us, 50
that when we get up an. Indictment we
may refer to his speech ia the Senate
that the court may understand what Is
the offense of failing to give full effect to
the provisions Of this section. j CONFESS
I do not knOwr I am an Older lawyer
than he is; I have tried many cases; /
have studied statutes very carefully;
but I confess my entire ignorance Of
what is meant by this phrase IF any
such person or officer shall refuse cor
knowingly omit to give full effect to this
section" -


Ispass from that and come to- section
three: -


That whenever by or under the aUtli-
Onity of GleCOhstitutiOH-O or laws of any
State, or tile law sofa any Territory, amy
act IS or shah be FeqUired76o be done by
any citiZenrasza prerequisite to qualify
or entitIe him to vote, the offer of any
such citizen to perform the act TequiEed
to be done, as Aforesaid Shall, lift faded
TO be carried into execution by reasOuof
wrongful act or omission aforesaid of tlIe
the person or officer charged with the
dHty f-FeeeiviRg or permitting such
IJerf0rnanOes, ar -etfer 10 perform or act
ing thereon, be deemed and held as
performance in law Of such act.


That is to say, if the offer Of a citizen
to perform the act to be done shall fail
to be carried into execution by reason of
the wrongful act or omission, it shall be
deemed to be a performance. And then
what Then the judges Of election are
required to allow that man to vote upon
his presenting his affidavit of the fact
stated in the previous part of this section
without any contradiction whatsoever.
There is no door open to contradiction.
He may be swearing to the basest false
hood that ever fell from the lips Of a
man; he may not have offered to do the
thing; or if he did offer, he may not
have been prevented by any wrongful
act or omission of the registering officers
or Observation-Disclosures and yet, although
they might be able to prove by a hum
dTed witnesses that the man was COM
mitting perjury, his affidavit is to be ta-
ken as conclusive evidence of the fact,
and he is to be allowed to EQte---


But let US 60 a little further. Not on
Iy is he to be allowed to vote; but a judge
Of election or theHp person WiOis to- count
the vote, if he do not receive and count
that PERSONS vote upon his mere affidaV-
it, which he is not permitted to contra
dict, fOTfeits the sum of $500 'tO the per-
who makes the affidavit. In other
words, you hold out a plain, clear induce
ment to a man to commit perjury. You
give him $500 if he will swear falsely
There may or may not be one word Of
truth i'll what he says. 1t may be said
you can convict him of perjury ifth8s
swears falsely. How can you do it p
Let me put case. Here is a registrar,
a'man whose business it is to register
votes. A B says he came and offered to
register and to show that he was quail
fed before that man. In truth it may
be tlmthe never did any such thing; but
lie says So, land he goes tnthe election
and makes an affidavit of that fact. The
registrar may. swear that he never did
any such ching. That would be oath
against oath and yet lac must be al
lowed to vote, and if the officer refuses
receive his vote here iSla fine -OES500 to
the man himself who has taken this
false oath. How. are you to convict him
of periuFy2 You cannot do it. There
may be the oath of the registrar against
his oath; but every lawyer knows you
must have more than the oath of one
man to convict another man of perjury.
Youmust have two, witnesses, or one
witness and strong earFeburating cir
cunIstances. seq -9r.V z--s


By this bill--and this is only one of
L
get thrOugh-yOU put it absolutely in
the power of an unscruplOUs man to put
$500 in his pocket every time he is will
ing to tell a falsehOOd in the shape of an
affidavit. Not only do you put it in the
power of an UnseTupulOus man, but you
put is in the power of wicked men, or
men who aTe, ignorant and those who
use ignoraubnIen for their pglpOses.-
Take anegro who cannot read or write.
How easy it is tOpeTsUade that man that
he has appeared before the register and
offered to do all that was necessary to
entitle hinl to vote, when in point of fact
he would have no clear Distinct .knOwl
edge of anything he was to do at all in
the premises; and yet you allow the
man who has really. OfieredtO do nOth-


ing that the register is required to exact
of him, whO-is acting honestly but ig
-noranGly, the right to- go, and make his
affidavit and get his vote without COM
pIying with the State law; and not only
do YOU give him thai right, nut you
give him the right to have $500 put in
his pocket if he can convict any one Of
these officials upon that oath.


Let me 80 little further with this


bill. That is not all. Not only are the
$500 to be given TO this common inform
i, I ~
as I have stated, but the officer Is also
to be imprisoned;


And shall, On conviction thereof, be
fined not less than $500 and be inpris-
ahed nOtless than enc month and not


more than one year. tHr'


Now, sir, let us come to the fourth ss5-
ton:


THAT if any person by force, bribery,
threats Intimidation DT Otbpryyisn shall


hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct, any
citizen from dOingany act authorized by


this act to be done TO qualify him to


vote or from voting at an election as


aforesaid, suchp shall foreYeTy such


oflense forfeit and pay the sUmdof $500


to the person aggrieved thereby =


Here comes your $500 again to a COM


mon infOTmer- ~


TO be recovered by an action on the case


with full costs and such allowance for


counsel fees as the court shall deem just,


and also for every such OtfensR be guilty


of misdemeanOT, and shall, Oh cOnvic-


ton thereof, be fined not less than $500,


and be imprisoned not less than one


year.


Here it is again: $500 to the informer,


$500 to the United States, with impTis-


Onment added. Now look at the prac-


Teal effect Of such a section as that. It


says IL any man shall, not simply hinder


or prevent, but 'if anybody shah by


force, bribery, threats, intimidation, or
otherwise shall hinder &c. shall like


to know what that otherwise means .


Our learned Judicial Committee, IN


drawing up q criminal statue, uses lang
uage as this, that if any person by force,


bribery, threats, intimidation, or other


yryiro ellaTI bfndarr dalau |prnvnnt M. oh