Newspaper Page Text
gftronttle a rib Smtintl 1
WEDNESDAY APBILS, 1^76.
Hon. Montoomrby Blair has
tor Tildbn. Poor Tildbn. ,r
Thi mantle of prophecy fame fallen
upon the editor of the Port Valley Mir
ror. He aaya: “Governor Smith ood
tinnea to gain strength in Middle and
Southwest Georgia, and he ia just as
sure to be the next Governor as he runs.
Mark our prediction.”
The editor of the Geneva Lamp ia a
good judge of a good journal. Hear
him : “There ia a freshness about the
Augusta Chronicle and Sbbtinkl not
possessed by any other daily that cornea
to this office. It ia edited with great
care and ability. The weekly ia one of
the beet, if not the beet, in the State."
“Bohemian” telegraphs that his
charge against Mr. Gbadt ia not sus
tained by parties in Atlanta who started
it. Mr, Gbadt publishes a card deny
ing the charge of plagiarism. The
“Street Arabs” appeared originally in
the editorial columns of the Herald.
and was afterwards rewritten for the
Constitutionalist—* paper published in
this city;
Messrs. Puohb and Randall should
turn their attention to the McDuffie
Journal. That sterling paper is about
to “bolt” the Democratic nomination.
It actually copies the editorial which
stirred the Democratic bowels of P. and
8., and characterizes our remarks as
truthful and sensible. Bead the Journal
out of the party, P. and B.
The McDuffie Journal heartily en
dorses the suggestion of the Chbonicle
and Sentinel that the Convention for
the Eighth District should be held out
side of Augusta, and hopes that Thom
son may be selected as the plaoe of
meeting. We should be perfectly satis
fied with suoh a selection. Augusta has
no right to the Convention, and it should
beheld in Thomson, Sparta, Warren
ton, Crawfordville or Greenesboro.
The estate of the late General Francis
P. Blaib is valued at only five hundred
dollars. The St. Louis Republican
seems to think this fact shows that Gen
eral Blaib was exceptionably honest.
He may have been, but according to
General Shebman’s testimony General
Blaib did not hesitate to help himself
to Charleston carpets and Madiera wine
atOheraw in 1865. All men who die
poor are not honest. Poverty is the re
sult of extravagance as well as of sorupu
lousness.
The Georgia Congressmen are in favor
of hard money and opposed to Senator
Sherman’s resumption sham. On a
motion to suspend the rales and take up
Mr. Payne’s bill six of the nine Con
gressmen from Georgia—Messrs. Blount,
Cook, Felton, Habbis, Habtbidge and
Smith —voted in the affirmative. Mr.
Stephens was at home ill; Mr. Candler
was at home practicing law; and Mr.
Hill was in Washington but did not
vote. We are confident, however, that
Mr. Hill, if present, would have voted
with his colleagues, as it is well under
stood that he is in favor of hard money.
Op course things are coming to an
end now. We leaßn from undoubted
authority that Gabriel purchased (on
time and a lien) his trumpet yesterday.
The Borne Courier says Hon. Congress
man-from-the-Fifth-District-of-Georgia-
Candlxb is not the man to investigate
frauds in the Department of Justioe.
The Courier, in a burst of frankness,
says: “After investigating Kimball,
and pronouncing him a thief, he en
dorsed him to the Government as a man
eminently fitted to be trusted. Mr.
Candler is a Democrat, it is true, and
vo mo grieved to opowk iKuo ol ©mo nf
our party, but it is beet always to call
things by their right names.’ 1
POLITICAL REPENTANCE.
“Maryland, my Maryland” does not
take much stock in political repentance.
We quote :
What has Boscoe Conkling done that
Groses William Curtin should oenaure him ?
They have hewn wood and carried water for
Grant ever since he came into the Presidency.
—Rets York Herald.
A good point. No man has done more than
Groans Wm. Curtis, as editor of Harper's
Weekly, to fasten “Ghantibm” on this country.
And now he plays a sanctimonious part, and
wants to unload the burden he has helped
saddle the “nation” withal. We go in for
getting rid ef Grantism and Gurtisism at one
fell swoop.— Constitutionalist.
Georoe William Curtis onoe sup
ported Grant. Georoe William Cur
tis is now opposed to Grant. Bat the
Constitutionalist is not willing to ac
cept political repentance. This may be
a just, but it is certainly a severe rule,
and it is a rule that may operate against
those who enforoe it so strongly. Have
a care, Colonel.
THE DEMOCRACY OF TUB CONSTITU
TIONALIST.
The Constitutionalist is unnecessarily
troubled by an undetected typographi
cal error which caused a word written
“ meant ” to appear in type as “ want”
The Constitutionalist is solioitons that
the Chronicle and Sentinel should not
be “misrepresented or misunderstood
abroad or at home.” Of conrse we oan
not question either the magnanimity or
the sincerity of our neighbor, but we beg
leave to decline its kind offices. We
feel abundantly able to take oare of the
Chbonicle and Sentinel and to correct
all misrepresentations and misunder
standings conoerning its position. The
Chronicle and Sentinel has never hesi
tated, and will never hesitate, to express
its opinions at the proper time upon all
public questions. The Constitutionalist
need not be afraid that we will refuse to
support any good Demoorat who may be
presented upon a sound platform by the
St. Louis Convention. Any statements j
or insinuations to the contrary are aim- j
ply lacking, to put it with great mild- j
ness, in the essential of truth. In oon- i
elusion, we again repeat the suggestion,
that the Cbnriifwtfonafiri will have its
hands full keeping Radicalism oat of its
own shop. We can manage to keep np
onr end of the pole very comfortably.
THE ENFORCEMENT ACT.
We publish in the Chbonicle and j
Sentinel this morning the foil text of
the decision pronounced a few days ago
by the Snpreme Court of the United
States in the Grant Parish and Kentueky
election cases. The decisions are lengthy
but we give them in extenso, and to the
exclusion of editorial and other matter
because of their interest to the public
They are unquestionably the most im
portant judgments that have been ren
dered by the Supreme Court of the
United States sinoe Judge Taney de
cided the famous Deed Scott case. It
is true that the Court has not decided
squarely against the constitutionality of
the infamous Enforcement act. Our re
collection ia that the constitutionality of
the entire act was not presented sa an
iasue by the counsel in either ease. The
inference, however, seems plain that
mpon a proper case being made the
Oonrt will decide against the validity of
the whole law. As it is, the decisions rob
Mie statute of its sting and render it
practically inoperative and wholly use
less as a political agency. The decis
ions are almost the nnanimons opinions
of the Court—Mr. Justioe Hunt, Sena
tor Conkuno’s nominee, alone dissent
ing. The Hew York World eomplimsnts
Mr. Chief Justice Waite in the highest
terms upon what ho has done, and says
hit judgment in these eases shows that
he has determined to follow in the foot
steeps of his illustrious predecessors
upon the Bench—J at, Marshall sod
Taney. Wo have no disposition to de
tract a single iota from its piaise of Gen
eral Grant’s Chief Justice.
the oonmtitltuwauwt. -
Under the able business and editorial
management of Mr. E. & Pcohe, that
old and reliable Democratic organ, the
Constitutionalist, has been placed on s
firm foundation and bids fair to do a
prosperous business. Mr. Pughs is aa
able manager sod experienced newspa
per man. Tbs sucoesa of the National
Republican, that bitter and intensely
loyal sheet, published in Angusta daring
the Radical regime in Georgia, ia suffi
cient evidence of Mr. PuaHs’s*bility aa
a publisher and journalist. The Con
stitutionalist, under Mr. Puohb’b man
agement, will doubtless be extensively
patronized by the people of Georgia
and South Carolina.
COLUMBIA COUNTY.
KUurU r lll— mt A* Cfcroolrte
ul Meatiaei.
Appling, March 28,1876.
Jalf* OSi—’ Ofcaiwe.
The Spring term of the Superior Court,
Judge Wm. Gibbon presiding, convened
yesterday. In bis charge to the Grand
Jury, of which Hon. 8. O. Lamkin ia
foreman, hie Honor delivered quite a
homily on temperance, virtue and edu
cation. The Judge was unusually im
pressive and prayerful in his admoni
tions and appeals. He was vehement
against “X Roads groceries” and the
drones who support and conduct them.
Altogether the charge was brimful of
precepts of wisdom, which fell upon at
tentive ears.
The Bar.
• The large gathering of the legal fra
ternity might denote something besides
the ordinary routine of Court business
—something in the way of important
causes with fat fees—but there are no new
oases of any special importance. There
are some, however, of the Jabhdycb or
der on hand, and those are likely to be,
like a story in a weekly paper, continued.
The members of the bar are ; Messrs.
Wm. M. A M. P. Reese and D. M. Du-
Bose, of Washington; W. D. Tutt, Paul
C. Hudson, H. C. Roney and Jubiah
H. Casey, of Thomson; H. J. Lang and
J. E. Stbotheb, of Lincoln; ; as. P.
Vebdeby, Thos. H. Gibson, F. T. Lock
hart, Charles A. Harper, 8. Warren
Mays, L. D. Duval, Thad. Oakman,
Geo. T. Barnes, W. R. MoLaws, and
Davenport Jackson, Solicitor-General,
of Richmond; Messrs. D. C. Moore,
Chas. H. Shockley, J. Smith and J. D.
Shockley represent the local bar, the
latter being admitted to practice after
a searching examination by Jndge Reese
and Messrs. Tutt and Jackson.
The case of the State against Noah
Kent, for the murder of Michael Cal
lahan, will be tried Wednesday. The
accused, who has been in jail sinoe the
mnrder, is represented by L. D. Duval,
Esq. The evidence is circumstantial,
but the feeling against the prisoner is
strong. Kent is a native of Riohmond
county.
The Coanty Oat af DefcL
In 1873 the coanty owed Dearly $7,-
000. This indebtedness has been paid,
and Columbia does not owe a dollar to
day. In addition to paying off this
debt, several new bridges have been
bnilt, one of which (that on the Peters
burg road, over Uohee creek) cost
$1,950. The tax levy for county pnr
poses each year has been abont $5,000.
D. C. Moore, Esq., Ordinary, has man
aged the affairs of the county faithfully
and efficiently, and the people will ap
preciate his services by re-eleoting him
to the position which he has filled so
acceptably. All of the county officers
are good men—temperate and oapable.
The Planting Interest.
The people have planted largely of
bm&ll grain, and the prospects are fa
vorable for an increased yield of oats
and wheat. The area of land in corn
will also be greater than last year. The
oold snap will render neoessary the re
planting of corn, as in soma oases where
already planted and above the ground, it
has been killed. Commeroial fertilizers,
where used at ail, nave iu used spar
ingly. The people will behard pressed,
as they have to rely solely upon their
own resources to make a crop, but they
will manage to get along and be the
better off at the end of the season for
their self-reliance and forced economy.
Necessity will force the people to make
supplies, but those who never learn by
experience will continue to make them
selves poorer by planting largely in cot
ton, in order to sell it when made below
the cost of production. Farmers who
keep their smoke houses and com cribs
in the West deserve but little sympathy
from their neighbors.
A Pleasant Trie.
The writer, In company with one of
Augusta’s most enterprising merchants
and large-hearted oitizens, Mr. Jambs
A. Gray, made the trip from Augusta to
Appling, twenty-two miles, in three
hoars. The roads generally are in fair
condition, and Mn Gbat’s handsome
and spirited horses oonld have easily
made the trip in leas time. There are
evidences of thrift and industry along the
road—the fenoes are goed and the laud
ia all under cultivation. Old as it iB, it
ia still capable of producing good orops.
With small farms, better cultivation and
less land, the valley of the Savannah
oould be made to bloom like the rose.
The Augusta and Hartwell Batbwvd
Will.one day become an absolute neces*
sity—indeed, it is au absolute necessity
now to the people on both sidee of the
Savannah and to the mercantile interests
of Auguste. At on# time, and not a
long time ago either, Augusta was the
reservoir from whioh the upper coun
ties of Georgia aud of South
Carolina drew their supplies. This
trade was extensive and lucrative, bat it
has now all passed into other channels.
There is but one way in whioh it oan be
diverted from those channels and brought
back, and that is by the proposed Au
guste and Hartwell Railroad. The
building of this road would develop a
splendid oountry—a country that would
naturally attroot a Urge influx of indus
trious farmers—the product* of whose
| hands would find theii; way to Auguste,
j Something should be done for this road,
j Although overburdened with a heavy
1 debt, Augusta is not too poor to aid
this road. The question should be agi
tated and immediate steps taken to re
vive the enterprise and bring it promi
nently before the people- It is probable
that State aid to the extent of $4,000 per
guile will be given the Marrielte and
North Georgia Railroad by the next
Legislature. If the Augusta and Hart
well Company ia properly organized and
plaoed in the hand# of men in whom the
people have confidence, there is no good
reason why aid should be given to a
railroad to develop one •action and re
fused to a railroad to develop another.
With State aid and the aid of the people
along the line of the toad, and a liberal
subscription from Augusta, the Auguste
and Hartwell oould be built.
Brief Mwdw.
In case Mr. Shifhene resigns, or fails
to be nominated by the next Conven
tion, Judge Wm. Gibson will become an
independent candidate for Cos agrees.
He thinks that he can carry the
District as an independent Aa the
J Judge’s oandidaqy will depend upon
oertain contingencies that are possible
but not probable, as long as Mr. Ste
phens lives, it ia not neoessary to dis
cuss the “ethics” of independent candi
dates at this time.
It ia stated that Hon. & C. Lamkin,
who ban represented Columbia In the
Legislature for six years, win decline
going before the Convention for a re
nomination. The highest compliment
that oan be paid a representative* to
say that he did his duty faithfully and
to the best of his ability, sad this mb
be said of Mr. Lamkin with all sinceri
ty. The names of Captain F.E.Evnsnd
Mr. J. P. Williams, it is rumored, mil be
nrnirvNnrl to the Convention.
Colonel Bwrar provide, the proven
der tor the legal Wtoty. and their
epicurean testes are always satisfied
with the substantial, sad daheask*
which his ball of flu* aootaißß. hw
supplies a good ttefle. ' -
be pleased to learn that he has quit
“ ” “ dAtu %
T*
THE DISTRICT COBCPOmOJf.
We are reminded by tee Gazette that
Washington area left out of the list
of places where the Gonvemtion could
meet to select delegates to St. Louis
to nominate a candidate for Presi
dent and Vice-President.' We sug
gested to the Executive Committee,
which is to meet in Augusta Monday,
that either Thomson, Sparta, Warren
ton, Crawfordville or Greenesboro be
jkiw la a thi biUl'm “ ■
tiou. We expressed the hope that Au
guste would not be selected as tha place;
but we unintentionally omitted Wash
ington from the list of places where the
District Convention for the selection of
delegates could be held. The Gazette
calls our attention to tee omission and
announces Washington aa a candidate
for the Convention to beheld there. Our
cotemporary states teat there will be am
ple accommodation foi the delegates, and
that no town in Georgia has more hos
pitable oitizens, and that there is no
town where the delegates will fare any
better. We cordially endorse all that
the Gazette sayß of its beautiful town
and hospitable citizens. Washington
would suit ns, and we cheerfully name
it as a candidate for the honor of hold
ing the District Convention. Auguste
is willing to divide the honors with her
smaller sisters in the interior.
mupkrmk court of this united
STATUS.
No. 1 GO—October Term, 1876.
Harvey Terry, Plaintiff in Error, vs.
Emily B. Tnbman. In error to the Cir
curt Court of the United States tot the
Southern District of Georgia.
Mr. Justioe Hunt delivered the Opinion
of the Court.
The plaintiff, a oitizen of Georgia,
brings his action to recover from Mrs.
Tnbman the sum of $5,400. He alleges
that he holds the circulating notes of
tee Bank of Angnsta, Georgia, to teat
amount, and that tee defendant was, in
June, 1862, and thenceforth, a holder of
three hundred and seven shares of the
•took of that bank, of the nominal value
of one hundred dollars per share. The
Bank of Angnsta was chartered Decem
bers?, 1845, and its charter contained the
following provision:
“Sec. 3. That the individual property
of tee stockholders in said bank shall be
bound for the ultimate redemption of
the bills issued by said bank in propor
tion to the number of shares held by
them respectively; and in case of a fail
ure of said bank, all transfers of stock
made within six months prior to a fail
ure or refnsal on the part of said bank
to redeem its liabilities in speois when
required, shall be void, and the private
property of the individual or individuals
transfering said stock shall be liable for
the redemption of the bills of said bank
as above stated.” The defendant plead
ed tee statute of limitation, alleging tbat
all of the bank notes sued on were issued
bv the Augusta bank prior to J one 1,
1865, and that before that date the bonk
had became insolvent, unable to meet
its liabilities, had voluntarily stopped
payment and ceased to do business, and
so continued down to the time of the
plea. To this plea tee plaintiff demur
red. The Circuit Court rendered judg
ment for the defendant on this plea,
from whioh the plaintiff brings bis writ
of error to this Court. The statute of
limitations of the State of Georgia was
passed on the 16th March, 1869, and is
as follows, so far as this aotion is con
cerned, viz :
“Sec. 3. And it is farther enacted,
That all actions on bonds or other in
struments under seal, and all suits for
the enforcement of rights accruing to
individuals or corporations under the
statutes or aots of incorporation, or in
any way by operation of law, which
accrued prior to Ist June, 1865, not now
barred, shall be brought by Ist January,
1870, or the right of the party, plaintiff
or claimant, and all right of aotion for
its enforcement, shall be forever bar
“Seo. 6. That all other aotions on
contracts, express or implied, or upon
any debt or liability whatsoever due the
publio, or a corporation, or a private in
dividual or individuals, whioh aoorued
prior to tee Ist June, 1865, and are not
now barred, shall be brought by Ist
January, 1870, or both the right and the
>i<rht of aotion to enforce it shall bo for
ever barrod. All limitations hereinbe
fore expressed shall apply as well to
Courts of equity as Courts of law, and
the limitations shall take effeot in all
cases mentioned in this aot, whether the
right of action had aotually aocrued
prior to the Ist Jane, 1865, or was then
only inohoate and imperfect, if the con
tract or liability was then in existence.”
The plea demurred to alleges, and it is
to be here assumed to be true, that the
bank notes held by the plaintiff had
been issued prior to June .1, 1865, the
time specified in the limitation aot just
quoted. It is further alleged, ana to
be taken as trne, that prior to that time
the bank had became notoriously insol
vent, unable to meet its liabilities, and
had ceased to do business. The ques
tion is whether the right pf action now
sought to be enforoed, had, on or be
fore June 1,. 1865, by means of these
facts, aoorued to the plaintiff. If it
had, the present action is barrbd by
the statute, for it oan hardly be contend
ed that this is not ope of the aotions
embraoed within the terms of the statute.
The plaintiff insists that no cause of ac
tion against the stockholder existed on
tee first of Jane, 1865, and not until the
bank had made its assignment in 1866,
its affairs had been administered and a
made upon the bank aud had been re
fused. His fourth point is this:
“4th. That the liability of said defend
ant stoekbo}4 er (had not attached and
did not attach, under W*d charter) to
pay said bank bills before tfep assign
ment of said bank and the assets of said
bank had been administered and ap
plied to payment of its debts, and did
not ftUtfib until demand for payment
was made on uc/d bank bills, and, there
fore, said actios did Bflf aoorne before
the first day of June, 1865, but gggrned
since the assignment ol said bank, and
the administration of the assets, estab
lishing the ultimate liabililitv of said
stockholders, and sinoe the breach of
contract (z) pp demand, to wit, on
the day of this suit.”
In this point the plaipfif alleges that
the defendant's liability did not attaob
when tec ftssete of tee bank bad been
administered and de*h*®d of.payment
made opo tha bapk. and that the de
fendant was pot liable until that time.
The fsots upon which be claims the
benefits of this legal result he alleges
iu his oomplaint, as follows :
“And yonr petitioner avers that the
said President, Directors, Company of.
the Bank af Augasta, afterwards, tc-wit,
on theT** 4*f of January, A. D. 1866,
assigned and ednyeyeq. ffff the benefit
of its creditors, all of ite prope/fy, both
real and personal, its choses in action,
olaims and demands of every kind what
ever, for the payment Qf ?te debts, in re
demption of its bills, sad so far as it
oonld do so by its own aet, and for all
the purposes of the payment of its debts
in tee enforcement of the collection
thereof, by suit or otherwise, and for
the purpose pf its creation, has become
and is a dissolved poiporation ; that it
has no place of business* rendering a
demand for payment of said bills and a
suit against said corporation wholly fu
tile aud useless.”
There is te tee oomplaint no allega
tion that payment ot the bills has ever
been demanded of the beak, but {Resent
ment tor payment is excused oa the
sroand teas the condition of the bank
Sadered a demand useless. There is
no averment that a judgment had been
obtained against tne bank. Of that a
suit had been commenced W* P
notes It is excused on the ground that
it had assigned all of its property and
was substantially dissolved. There is no
averment that its assets had been admin
istered and applied to tee pay mantof m
debts, in any other manner than that it
was insolvent and had made an assign
ment of its property. The plaintiff * al
ienations fall short ol what, in his points,
XriTtais neoessary to constitute s
cause of action. The concurrence qf the
toots alleged in the oomplaint and in the
manner indicated, brings into operation,
aa he insists, the provision of the char
ter teat the indimdasl property of tea
defendant ia bound for the redemption
of the tell# ol the bank, anteonacs the
present suit against the defandmiti Up-
Snthe theoryof the complaint before
oa the climate redemption, for which
the property of the stockholder is by
statute made liable, is not that amount
or proportion remaning
of the bankhaye beep spplted. 8 ®
„* they will go, inpayment of tee teUs,
tor there is no averment teat the toast
under the assignment has been closed, °f
sfiSssiSSdf
gaSagtaSas
lira of Py it
a suit against tee bank for tha wewory
of tee tells would be Metre* These faote
create a liability, he insists, whioh justi
fy a suit against the defendant commenc
ed in 1872. If they do not, he shows no
cause of action in his complaint. He
has, however, demurred to the defend
ant’s plea, which averred that the same
facts existed and justified the commeoo
ment of a soft on the first day of Jane,
1865; in other words, that hia right of
action had*eorued prior to Jane 1,1865,
and same isbarred by the statute
quoted. Thus, when the plaintiff avers
mat the bank made an assignment of all
its property and thereby oeasee to exist
as a corporation, the defendant makes
an equivalent averment when he alleges
tbat before the first day of June, 1865,
the bank had notoriously flopped pig
ment and’ ceased to transact business,
the plaintiff alleges that for the reasons
stated a demand upon the bank for pay
ment, or asuit against it, would be use
less, the defendant makes an equivalent
averment when he alleges that on the
first day of Jncte, 1865, tee bank “had
become notoriously insolvent and nnable
to meet its liabilities.” It seems te be
quite clear that the same allegations
made by the plaintiff to show that he
had acanse of action when he brought
this suit in 1872 are found in tee plea
he has demurred to, alleging that the
cause of action was in existence on the
first day of June, 1865. If his com
plaint is good the plea is good. If the
plea is bad the complaint is bad. A de
murrer seeks the first fault in pleading,
and it is with the plaintiff that the first
error exists if error there be. We are of
the opinion, also, that the facts alleged
in the plea are sufficient to make it a
good plea; in other words, that the cause
of action, so far ae there is a separate
and distinct right of action in favor of
each bill holder, was in force on the first
of Jane, 1865, We are of the opinion
that it is not neoessary first to exhaust
the assets of the bank by legal proceed
ing. The case is not so much like that
of the guaranty of the “collection” of a
debt, where the previous proceeding
against the principal debtor is implied,
as it is like a guaranty of “payment,”
where resort may be had at once to the
guarantor without a previous proceed
ing against the principal.—(Wadsworth
vs. Wadswoith, 11 Wend., 100; 17 lb.,
103; 2 Parsons on Bills and N., p. 142,-
3.) A judgment and execution unsatis
fied are evidence of insolvency, of in
ability to collect. They are, however,
evidence only, and the fact may be es
tablished as well by other modes, by an
assignment and continued suspension of
business, or other notorious indica
tions.—(Camden v#. Doremis, 3 How.,
533; Reynolds vs. Douglas, 12 Peters,
497 ; 2 Am. Leading Cases, 134—6.) We
think the liability for the “nltimate re
demption” of the bills, if properly en
forced, arises when the bank refuses or
ceases to redeem and ia notoriously and
eontinnonsly insolvent.— {Auth. supra.)
Kimber vs. Bank of Fnlton, 49 Ga. R.,
419, is a decision directly in point by
the Supreme Coart of the State of Geor
gia. The oase of Pollard vs. Bailey, 20
Wall., 521, is an authority against the
maintenance of a separate aotion by oue
creditor who seeks to obtain his entire
debt to the possible exclusion of others
similarly situated. The proper pro
ceeding is in equity, where all the claims
can be presented, all the liabilities of
the stockholders ascertained, and a just
distribution made. Judgment affirmed.
D. W. Middleton. O. S. O. U. S.
LETTER FROM WINTERYILLE.
A Thriving little Town—A Moral Community
—Preparation* for Plowing—Thn Cold Snap
—Damage to the Fruit.
Wintkrville, Oglethorp Cos.. Ga., )
March 81, 1876. f
Editors Chronicle and Sentinel :
Need I tell you where Winterville is ?
Some of your readers know already, and
perhaps those who do not know do not
care to know. Still as I may—with your
permission—send you an occasional let
ter from this place, and as 1 do not care
to write as it were from a terra incog
nita, it may not be altogether improper
for me to say something abont the little
village from which I send yon these
traditional few lines. Winterville is a
railroad town in the northwest corner of
good old Oglethorpe. A part of the
villege lies across the line in the neigh
boring oonnty of Clark. It is one
of those nmneronß towns that have
grown up along the railroads in Georgia
since the close of the war. In 1865 there
were only four families living in the vil
lage. Now, we have four stores, a steam
saw and grist mill, one or two black
smiths and carriage shops, and a num
ber of comfortable and respectable
dwelling houses. The progress of the
plaoe has been characterized by gradnal
yet steady improvement rather than by
rapid development. The population of
the village is oomposed of shrewd, hon
est, thriving business people, who are
fully alive to and who nro
ready ta dispense a generous nocpUality
to strangers. There is a good school in
the village under the charge of Captain
Thomas H. Dozier, wno has had mnch
successful experience as a teacher. The
village is comparatively free from those
vioious influences that so frequently dis
tinguish small villages. Intemperance
and the grosser forms of immorality are
almost unknown.
There is little news of general inter
est to communicate. Farmers are pre
paring, as well as the weather and the
lateness of the season will allow, for
planting. Guano will be used as exten
sively as last year. Of course it is out
of the question to give any accurate es
timate as yet of the relative area of
corn and cotton that will be planted.
It is probable, I fear, that our people
have not yet learned the salutary lesson
that pottpfi culture in this section, when
allowed to supersede tire culture of corn
and small gram, is not profitable to the
planter. Truly it requires line upon
line and precept upon precept, together
with the dearly bought lessons of expe
rience, to teach men wisdom. Small
grain, especially o*ts, was injured by
the recent oold spell, Peaches, as well
as other frnit, were seriously damaged
by the freeze. Suoh severe and pro
tracted oold, so late in March, has not
been experienced in this section for
many years. P.
LETTER FROM GAINESVILLE.
The Cftr pt C*ainpyHlo—A Delightful Sum
mer Resort—General Rongstreet in the
B*tp| Hpflnpss w “ ynple Dpn’J Qpattle
bantu, Em,
[From Qur Traveling Correspondent .]
Gainesville, March 25, 1876.
The Superior Court has been in ses
sion daring the week, bat owing to the
bad weather the attendanoe was small.
Gainesville, as yon kpqw, is situated on
the Atlanta aDd Richmond Line
Railroad. It contains abont three thou
sand inhabitants; is a thriving plaoe and
building up fast. During the Summer,
Gainesville is the resort of people seek
ing health spd pleasure. The climate
is delightful qqd tffe water is recom
mended for it? uppers! properties.—
Some of those who were attracted to
Gainesville daring the heated term,
liking the plimste and location so well,
have Inflated bPfe permanently. The
mineral springs in this vicinity are
among the best in the State.
Gen. Lougatraet^attracted to Gaines
ville by the haalthtalness of the place,
is building a hotel here. Gainesville
has a college of which R-v. W. v.
Wilkes, A. M., is President. This in
stitution is in a flourishing condition.
There ars tb re s lurches here—Metho
dist, Presbyterian and Baptist. The
latter is not quite finished, bqt the pro
ceeds realized from an entertainment
given last week yill enable the congre
gation to have it plastered.
In company with Mr. Daniel Quattle
banm, I visited General
residence, which is about one mile from
here. This building, although it cost
only $4,000, presents a handsome ap
pearance. The view from his porch—of
the majestic mountains rising in the dis
tance—is very fine. General Jjongstreet
will move his family to Gainesville in
May. Hon. A. D. Candler, the able
and faithful representative from Hall in
the Legislature, is the architect and
builder of General Longstreet's resi
dence.
“Uncle Dan” Quattlebanm, formerly
of Edgefield, is running the Bowdre
House in Gainesville. Daring last Sum
mer he had as many as fifty guests at a
time. In order to keep up with the re
quirements of the public, “Uncle Dan”
has made additions to his house, and
will be able to provide for as many as
seventy-five this poming Summer. He
has an attractive place. Mr. Q. is well
known in Augusta.
Xouy agent was treated courteously
and kindly by the people of Gainesville,
and takes t!us occasion to return his
oordi&l thanks to Col. Jno. B. Estes,
Hon. A. D. Candler, and the editors and
proprietors of the Eagle and Southern.
I leave here to-morrow tot Alpharetta,
Milton oonnty. Q. W. N.
Garden Work foe April. Many
thing* planted last month may now be
replanted, if neoessary, to secure good
crops, such as cabbage, onions, celery,
sweet potatoes, okra, lettuce, radishes,
tomatoes, etc. The garden should now
be fairly under way. Snaps and lime
should be planted. Broccoli may
be Bown. a4 paUi£ower for a late crop.
Look after ypnr asparagus beds. Plant
water and mask melons, squashes and
encumbers, in a rich sandy soil, deeply
and ngf Transplant strawbernee.pepper,
frost with* smoke.
• """
Mr. J. G. Shannon iri K W. Camp,
Of o°"**“ and Mr Duoige W
cmp, ef Garegllto*,' left on Monday
last: for Texas on a prospecting tone,
-THE BALLOT
important decisions of the
SUPREME COURT.
N
The Eofercemeat Aet Void ef Faroe—lM
Terms Teo Swee?ia—AMe Elucidation of
the Fifteenth Cenetitutianal Amendment—A
State Right* Triumph—The Grant Pariah
and Kentucky Case* Dismissed.
No. 339. The United Btatii plaintiff
in “rror, vs. William J. Cruikshank,
William D. Irwin and John P. Hndnut
—ln error to the Circuit Court of the
United States for the District of Lou
isiana Mr! Chief Justice Waite deliv
ered tee opinion of the .Court. This
case comes here with a certificate by the
Judges of the Circuit Oonrt for the Dis
mui urmuißimi, uin uay
ded in opinion upon a question which
occurred at the hearing. It presents for
onr consideration an indictment con
taining sixteen counts, divided, into two
series of eight counts each, based fiipon
section 6 of the Enforcement aot of May
31, 1870. That section is as follows ;
“ That if two or more persons shall
band or conspire together, or go in dis
guise upon the public highway, or upon
the premises of another, with intent to
violate any provision of this act, or to
injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate
any citizen, with intent to prevent or
hinder his foil exercise and enjoyment
of any right or privilege granted or se
cured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having
exercised tee same, such persons shall
be held gnilty of felony, and, on convic
tion thereof, shall be fined or imprison
ed, or both, at the discretion of the
Oonrt, the fine not to exceed $5,000 and
the imprisonment not to exceed ten
years; and shall, moreover, be thereaf
ter ineligible to and disabled from hold
ing any office or place of honor, profit
or trust created by the Constitution or
laws of tea United States.” (16 Stat.,
141.)
The question certified arose upon a
motion in arrest of judgment after a ver
dict of gnilty generally upon the whole
sixteen counts, and is stated to be
whether the said sixteen counts of said
indictment are severally good and suf
ficient in law, and contain charges of
criminal matter indictable under the
laws of the United States.
The general charge in the first eight
counts is that of ‘*banding,” and in the
second eight that of “conspiring” to
gether to injure, oppress, threaten aud
intimidate Levi Nelson and Alexander
Tillman, oitizens of the United States
of African desoent and persons of color,
with the intent thereby to hinder and
prevent them in their full exercise and
enjoyment of rights and privileges
granted and secured to them in common
with all other good oitizens of the Uni
ted States. By the Constitution and
laws of the United States, the offenses
provided for by the statute in question
do not consist in the mere “bandiDg” or
“conspiring’’ of two or more persons to
gether, but in their banding or conspir
ing with the intent or for any of the
purposes specified. To bring this ease
uuder the operation of this statute,
therefore, it must appear that the right,
the enjovment of which the conspirators
intended, to hinder or prevent, was one
granted or secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States. If it does
not so appear the criminal matter
oharged has not been made indiotable
by any act of Congress. We have in
our political system a government of
the United States and a government of
each of the several States. Each one of
these governments is distinct from the
others, >ind each has oitizens of its own
who owe it allegiance and whose rights
within its jurisdiction it must protect.
The same person may be at the same
time a oitizen of the United States and
a citizen of a State, but his rights of
citizenship under one of these govern
ments will be different from those he
has under the other. (Slaughter house
cases, 16 Wall, 74) Oitizens are the
members of the political community to
which they belong. They are the people
who compose the community, and who,
in their associated capacity, have estab
lished or submitted themselves to the
dominion of a government for the pro
motion of their general welfare and the
protection, of their individual, as well
as their collective rights. In the forma
tion of a government the people may
oonfer upon it suoh powers as they
choose. The government when so
formed may, and when called upon
should, exercise all the powers it has for
the protection of the rights of its citi
zens and the people within its jurisdic
tion, but it can exeroise no other. The
dnty of a government to afford protection
is limited always by the power it possess
es for that purpose. Experience made the
fact known to the people of the United
States that they required a National
Government for national purposes. The
separate governments of the separate
States, bound, together by the articles
ot conrederation ©lone, were not suffi
cient for the promotion of the general
welfare of the people in respect to for
eign nations, or for the complete pro
tection as citizens of the confederated
States; for this reason the people of the
United States, “in order to form a more
perfect Union, establish justioe, secure
domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general
welfare and secure the blessings of
liberty” to themselves and their posteri
ty—-(Constitution preamble) —ordained
and established the Governmeat of the
United States, and defined its powers
by a constitution which they adopted as
its fundamental law and made its rule
of aotion. The government thus estab
lished and defined is, to some extent, a
government of the States in their politi
cal capacity. It is also for certain pur
poses a government of the people. Its
powers are limited in number, but not
in degree. Within the scope of its
powers as enumerated and defined it is
supreme and above the States, but be
yond it has no existence. It was erected
for speoial purposes and endowed with
ail the powers necessary for its own
preservation and the accomplishment of
the ends its people had in view. It oan
neither grant nor seoure to its oitizens
any right or privilege not expressly or
by implication plaoed nnder its juris
diction. The people of the United States
resident within any State are subject to
two governments, one State and the
othef National; but there need be no
conflict between the two. The powers
which the one possesses the other does
not. They are established for different
purposes and have separate j urjsdictions.
Together tesy make one Whole and fur
nish the people of the United States
with a complete government, ample for
the protection of all their rights at home
and abroad. True, it may sometimes
happen that a person is amenable to both
jurisdictions for one and the same act.
Thus, if a marshal of the United States
is nnlawfully resisted while exeouting
the process of the Courts within a State,
and the resistance is accompanied by an
assault on the officer, the sovereignty of
the United States is violated by the re
sistance, aqd that qf fh® State by the
breaoh of peace in the assault, f , too,
if one passes the counterfeited ,oln of
the United States within a State, it may
be an offense against the United States
and the State—the fjnited States, be
cause it disciefiits the eoin, and the
State, because of the fraud upon him to
whom it is passed,
This does not, however, necessarily
imply that the :wo governments possess
powers in common, or that bring them
into conflict with each other. It is the
uatnral consequence of a citizenship
which owes ollegianoe to two sovereign
ties and claitUs protection from both.
The oitizen eainot complain, because he
has yoluutarily submitted himself to
such a form °! government. He owes
allegiance to tip two departments, so to
speak, and, within their respective
spheres, must pay the penalties which
each exacts foi disobedience to its laws.
In return be oan demand protection
from each witiin its own jurisdiction.—
The Govemaint of the United States is
one of delegated powers alone. Its an
thority is defined and limited by the
Constitution; all powers not granted to
it by that instrument are reserved to tee
States or the peqple. I)g rights oan be
acquired ond<r the Constitution or laws
of the United States except such as the
Government the United States has
the anthorito to grant or secure. All
that cannot to so granted or secured
are left ujiler te® protection of the
States.
We now pnceed to sn examination of
tee indiotin*its to ascertain whether
the several lights which it is alleged
the defendarts intended to interfere
with aresookas had been in law and in
fact granted ,or secured by the CJonsti
tution or lam of the United States. The
first and nint| counts states the intent
of the defendants to have been to hinder
and prevent the citizens named in the
full exerois* and enjoyment of their
“lawful right! and privileges to peace
ably assembu together with each other,
and with o;ler citizens of the United
States, for a peaceful mid lawful pur
pose." Tk right of the people peace
ably to assemble for lawful purposes ex
isted long Defore the adoption of the
Constitutioi of the United States. In
fact, it is and always has been one of
the ettribatis of citizenship under a free
government. It derives ita souroe, to
use the langmge of Chief Justioe Mar
shall in Giltons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat,
9.11, from these laws whose authority is
acknowledge by civilized man through
out tee wort* it ia found wherever civil-
Ration i>TWrr it not there for a
right granted to tfie peopleby Con
stitution. Tip Governmeiri ot tha Xfmt
ed State* wh® found it in
existence w$ the qbligatiqn on tee
Congress. 1 remains acoordjngto the
ruling in Gitfious vs, Ogden, 9 Wheat.,
203i-feabjeet to only
such existing rights were oommitted
by the people to the protection
of Congress as came within the general
scope of the authority granted to the
National Government. The first amend
ment Of the Constitution prohibits Con
gress from abridging the right of the
people to assemble and to petition the
Government for a redresss of griev
anoes. This, like the other amend
ments proposed and adopted at the same
time. Was not intended to limit the pow
ers of State government in respect to
their own citizenship, but operate on
the National Government alone. Barron
va. The City of Baltimore, 76 Pet. 25;
TANARUS., Lessee of Livingston, va. Moore, 7
Pet. 551; Ftfx wa Ohio, 5 How., 434;
Smith va. Maryland, 18 How., 76; With
tn *. Hockley, 20 How., 2d; Pervear
vs. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall., 479;
Twit'chell va. The Commonwealth, 7
Wall., 321; Edwards t>. Elliott* 21 Wall,
557. It is now too late to question the
correctness of this construction, as was
said by the late Chief Justioe in Twitch
nll vs. The Commonwealth, p. 325. The
scope and application of these amend
ments are no longer subjects of discus
sion here. They left the authority of
the States jnst where they found it, and
added nothing to the already existing
power of the United States. The par
ticular amendment now under consid
eration assumes the existence of the
right of the people to assemble for law
ful purposes, and protects it against en
croachment by Congress. The right
was not created by the amendment,
neither was its continuance guaranteed
except as against Congressional inter
ference. For their protection in its en
joyment, therefore, the people mast
look to the States. There is where the
power for that purpose was originally
plaoed, and it has never been surrender
ed to the United States. The right of
the people peaoeably to assemble for the
purpose of petitioning Congress for a
redress of grievances or for anything
connected with the powers or dnties of
the National Government is an attribute
of national citizenship, and as such un
der the protection of and guaranteed by
the United States. The very idea of a
government, republican in form, implies
a right on the part of its citizens to meet
peaceably for consultation in respect to
public affairs and to petition for a re
dress of grievances. If, a3 it has been
alleged in these counts, the object of the
defendant was to prevent a meeting for
snoh a purpose, the course would have
been within the statute and within the
scope of the sovereignty of the United
States. Such, however, is not the case.
The offense as stated in the indictments
will be made out if it be shown that the
object of the conspiracy was to
prevent a meeting for any lawful
purpose whatever. The second and
tenth counts are equally defective.
The right there specified is that of
bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This
is not a right granted by the Constitu
tion. Neither is it in any manner de
pendent upon that instrument for its
existence. The second amendment de
clares that it shall not be infringed, but
this, as has been seen, means no more
than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amend
ments that have no other effect than to
restriot the powers of the National Gov
ernment, leaving the people to look for
their protection against any viola
tion by their fel’ow-oitizens of
the rights it recognizes to what
is called, in the City of New
York va Mine (11 Pet., 189\ “the powers
whioh relate to merely municipal legis
lation,” or what was perhaps more prop
erly called “internal police,” not sur
rendered or restrained, by the Constitu
tion of the United States. The third
and eleventh counts are ever more ob
jectionable. They charge the intent to
have been to deprive the citizens named
(they living in Louisiana) of their re
spective several lives and liberty of per
son, without the dne process of law.
This is nothing else than alleging a
conspiracy to falsely imprison or mur
der citizens of the United States, being
within the territorial jurisdiction of the
State of Louisiana. The rights of life
and personal liberty are natural rights
of man.
“To secure these rights,” says the
Declaration of Independence, “govern
ments are instituted among men, deriv
ing their just powers from the consent
of the governed.” The very highest
duty of the States when they entered
into the Union, under the Constitution,
was to protect all persons within their
boundaries in the enjoyment of these
“inalienable rights” with whioh they
were endowed by their Creator. Sov
ereignty for this purpose rests alone
with the States. It is no more the duty
or within the power of the United States,
to pnnish for a conspiracy, to falsely im
prison or murder within a State than it
would be'to punish for false imprison
ment or murder itself.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits
a State from depriving any person of
life, liberty or property without due
process of law, but this adds nothing to
the rights of one citizen as against an
other; it simply furnishes an additional
guaranty agaiqst any encroachment by
the State upon the fundamental rights
whioh belong to every citizen as a mem
ber of society, as was said by Mr. Jus
tice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia va.
O’Kely, 4 Wheat., 244. It secures the
individual from the arbitrary exercise
of the powers of government, unre
strained by the established principles of
private rights and distributive justice.
These counts in the indiotment do not
call for the exercise of any of the pow
ers conferred by this provision in the
amendmeht.
The fourth and twelfth counts oharge
the inteut to, have been to prevent and
hinder the citizens named, who were of
Afrioan descent and persons of color, in
"the free exercise and enjoyment of their
several rights and privileges to the full
and equal benefit of all laws and pro
ceedings then and before that time en
acted or ordained by the said State of
Louisiana and by the United States, and
then and there at that time being in
force in the same State and district of
Louisiana aforesaid for the security of
their respective persons and property
then and there at that time enjoyed at
and within said State and district of
Louisiana by white persons, being citi
zens of said State of Louisiana and the
United States, for the protection of the
persons and property of said white citi
zens.” There is no allegation that this
was done beoaqse of the rape qr color of
the persons conspired against. When
stripped of its verbiage the oase, as pre
sented, amounts to nothing more than
thaftbe defendants aonspired to prevent
certain citizens of the United States, be
ing within the State of Louisiana, from
enjoying equal protection of the laws of
the State and of the United States. The
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State
from denying to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the
lawsj but this provision does not any
more than the one which precedes it,
and whiph we have jqst considered, add
anything to the rights which one citizen
has under the Constitution against an
other. The equality of the rights of
oitizens is a principle of republicanism.
Every republican government is in duty
bound to proteot all its citizens in the
enjoyment of this principle if within its
power. That duty was originally as
sumed by the States, and it still remains
there. The only obligation resting npon
the United States is to see that the
States do not deny the right. This the
amendment guarantees, but no more.
The power of the National Government
is limited to the enforcement of this
guaranty. No question arises under the
Civil Bights bill of April 9, 1866, 14
Stat., 27, which is intended for the pro
tection of citizens of the United States
in the enjoyment of certain rights, with
ont discriminating on account of race,
color or previous condition of servitude,
because, as baa already been stated, it
is nowhere alleged in these counts that
the wrong contemplated against the
rights of these citizens was on acoount
of their race or color. Another objection
is made to these connta that they are too
vague and uncertain, Thi wifi be con
sidered hereafter in connection with the
same objection* tq other counts.
The sixth and fourteenth counts state
thf intent of the defendants to have
been to hinder and prevent the citizens
named, being of African descent and
colored, in the free exercise and enjoy
ment of their several and respective
rights to vote at any election to be there
after by law had and held by the people,
in and of the said State of Louisiana, or
by the people ,of and in the parish of
Grant aforesaid. In Minor va. Happer
sett, 21 Wall, 178, We decided that the
Constitution of the United State* has
not conferred the right of suffrage upon
any one, and that the United States
have no voters of their own creation in
the States. In the United States va.
Reese, just decided, we hold that the
Fifteenth Amendment has invested the
citizens of the United States with anew
constitutional right, which is exemption
from discrimination in the exercise of
the elective franchise on aooonnt of race,
color or previous condition of servitude.
From this it appears that the right of
suffrage is not a necessary attribute of
national citizenship, bat that exemption
from discrimination in the exercise of
that right on account of race, Ac., ia.
The right to vote in the States comes
from the States; but the right of exemp
tion from the prohibited discrimination
comes from the United States. The
first has not been granted or secured by
the Constitution of the United States,
bat the last has been. Inasmuch, there
fore, as it does not appear in these
counts that the intent qf the defendants
was to prevent these parties from exer
cising theit right to vote on account of
their ace, Ac., it does not appear that
it wa their intent to interfere with any
right granted or secured by the Cousti
tation ox laws of theUfiited States. We
may suspect that race was the cause of
the hostility, but it is not so averred.
This is material to a description of the
substance of the offense, and cannot be
supplied by implication. Everything
essential must be charged positively or
not inferentially. The defect here is
not in farm, but in substance.
The seventh and fifteenth counts are
no better than the sixth and fourteenth.
The intent here charged is tosut the
parties named in great fear of bodily
harm, and to injure and oppress them,
because being and having been in all
things qualified they bad voted “at an
election before that time, had and held
according to law by the people of the
teid State of Louisiana, in said State,
to-wit: on the fourth day of November,
A. D. 1872, and at divers other elections
by the the State, also before
that time lia*- and held according to
law. There is nothing to show that the
elections voted at were any other than
State elections, or that the conspiracy
was formed on account of the race of
the parties against whom the conspira
tors were to act. The charge as made is
really of nothing more than a conspiracy
to commit a breach of the peace within
a State. Certainly it will not be claimed
that the United States have the power
or are required to do mere police duty
in the States. If a State' cannot proteot
itself against domestic violence the
United States may, upon the call of the
Executive, when the Legislature cauuot
be convened, lend their assistance for
that purpose. This is a guaranty of the
Constitution (artiole 4, section 4), bat it
applies to no case like this. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the first,
seoond, third, fourth, sixth, seventh,
ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, four
teenth and fifteenth counts do not con
tain charges of a criminal natare made
indictable Under the laws of the United
States, and that consequently they are
not good and sufficient in law. They do
not show that it was the intent of the
defendants, by their conspiracy, to hin
der or prevent the enjoyment of any
right granted or secured by the Consti
tution.
We come now to consider the fifth and
thirteenth and the eighth and sixteenth
counts, which may be brought together
for that purpose. The intent charged
in the fifth and thirteenth is to “hinder
and prevent the parties in their respec
tive and free exeroise and enjoyment of
the rights, privileges, immunities and
protection granted and secured to them
respectively as citizens of the United
States aud as citizens of the said State
of Louisiaua,” fer the reason that they,
being then and there oitizens of
said State, and of the United
States, were persons of Afrioan de
scent and race and persons of color, and
not white oitizens thereof ; and in the
eighth and sixteenth “to hinder and
prevent them in their several and re
spective free exercise and enjoyment of
every, each, all and singnlar, the several
rights and privileges granted and secur
ed to them by the Constitution and laws
of the United States.” The same gene
ral statement of the rights to be inter
fered with is found in the fifth and thir
teenth coants. According to the view
we take of these Counts the question is
not whether it is enough in general to
describe a statutory offense in the lan
guage of the statute, but whether the
offense has here been described at all.
The statute provides for the punishment
of those who oonspire “to injure, threat
en or intimidate any citizen with intent
to prevent or hinder his full exercise and
enjoyment of any right or privilege
granted or secured to him by the Con
stitution or laws of the United States.”
These counts in the indiotment charge
in substance that the intent in this case
was to hinder and prevent these oitizens
in the free exercise and enjoyment of
every, each, all and singular, the rights
granted them by the Constitution, Ac.
There is no specification of any particu
lar right. The language is broad enough
to cover all. In criminal cases prose
cuted under the laws of the United
States the aooused has the constitution
al right “to be informed of the nature
and cause of the aoensation.” (Amend
ment 6 ) In United States vs. Mills, 7
Pet. 142, this was construed to mean
that the indictment must set forth the
offense “ with clearness and all necessa
ry certainty to apprise the accused of
the crime with which hestandscharged.”
And in United States va. Cook, 17*Wall.,
174, “that every ingredient of which the
offense is composed must be accurately
and clearly alleged.” It is an elementa
ry principle of criminal pleading that
where the definition of an offense,
whether it be at common law, or by
statute, “includes generic terms, it
is not sufficient that the indictment shall
charge the offense in the same generic
terms as in the definition, but it must
state the species, it must descend to par
ticulars” (1 Arch. Cr. Pr. andP. L. 291.)
The object of the indiotment is, first, to
furnish the accused with such a descrip
tion of the charge against him ar will
enable him to make his defense and
avail himself of his conviction or ac
quittal for protection against a further
prosecution for the same cause; aud
second, to inform the Court of the facts
alleged, so that it may decide whether
they are sufficient in law to support a
conviction, if one should be had, for
this. Facts are to be stated, not conclu
sions alone. A crime is made up of aots
and intent, aud these mast be set forth
in the indiotment, with reasonable par
ticularity of time and place and circum
stances. It is a crime to steal goods and
chattels, but an indictment would be
bad that did not specify with some de
gree of certainty the articles stolen,
This, because the aoensed must he ad
vised of the eMtential particulars of the
charge against him, and the Court must
be able to decide whether the property
taken was such aa was the subject of
larceny. So, too, it is in some States a
-crime for two or more persons to oon
spire to cheat and defraud another oat
of his property; but it has been held
that an indiotment for such an offense
must contain allegations setting forth
the means proposed to be used to ac
complish the purpose. This, because to
make such a purpose criminal, the con
spiracy must be to cheat and defraud in
a mode made criminal; it is necessary
for the indieffment to state the means
proposed in order that the Coart may
see that they are, in fact, illegal (State
va. Parker, 43 N. H.,83; State us. Reach,
40 Vt., 118; Alderman va. The People, 4
Mich,, H 4; State va. Roberts, 34 Maine,
32).
In Maine it is an offense for two or
more to conspire with the intent, un
lawfully and wickedly, to edtnmit any
orime punishable by imprisonment in
the State Prison (State vs. Roberts), but
we think it will hardly be oiaimed that
an indiotmenc would be good under this
statate, which charged the objeot of the
conspiracy to have been unlawfully and
wickedly to commit each, every, all and
singular the crimes punjshahle by im
prisonment jn the State Prison. All
crimes are not so punishable. Whether
a particular orime be suoh an one or
not is a question of law. The aooused
has, therefore, the right to have a speci
fication of the oharge against him in
this respeot, in order that he may decide
whether he should present his defense
by motion to quash, demurrer or plea,
and the Court that it may determine
whether the facts will sustain the in
dictment. So where the crime is made
to consist in the unlawful combination
with an intent to prevent the enjoyment
of any right granted or secured by the
Constitution, Ac. All rights are not so
granted or secured. Whether one is so
or not is a question of law to be decided
by the Court, not by the prosecutor.
Therefore, the indictment aho.nld state
particulars to inform the Qourt as well
as the accused. It must be made to
appear—that is to say, appear from the
indiotment, without going further—that
the acts oharged will, if proven, support
a conviction for the offense alleged. Bat
it is needless to pursue the argument
further. The conclusion is irresistable
that these counts are too vague and
general. They laok the oerteinty and
precision required by the established
rules of criminal pleading, It follows
that they are not good and sufficient in
law. They are eo defective that no
judgment of oonviction should be pro
nounced upon them. The order of the
Circuit Court arresting the judgment
upon the verdict is, therefore, affirmed
and the case remanded, with instruc
tions to discharge the defendants.
Mr. Justice Clifford dissented from
the opinion, hut concurred in the judg
ment.
No. 145. The United States, plaintiffs,
va. Hiram Reese and Matthew Fousbee,
in error to the Oircait Court of the Unit
ed States for the District of Kentucky.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the
opinion of the Court. This case comes
here by reason of a division of opinion
between the Judges of the Oircait Court
in the District of Kentucky. It presents
an indictment containing fonr counts
under sections three and fonr of the act of
May 31,1870, 18 Stat., 140, against two of
the inspectors of mnnioipal election in the
State of Kentucky for refusing to re
ceive and connt at such election the vote
of William Garner, a citizen of the Unit
ed States of Afrioan descent. All the
questions presented by the certificate of
division arose upon general demurrers
to the several counts of the indictment
in this Court, The United States aban
don the first and third eonnts, and ex
pressly wave the consideration of ail
claims not arising out of the enforce
ment of the Fifteenth Amendment of the
Constitution. After this concession the
principal question left for consideration
is whether the act under which the in
dictment is found can he made effective
for punishment of inspectors of elec
tions who refuse to reoeive sod count
the votes of citizens of the United States
having all the qualifications of voters
because of their race, color or previous
condition 6T servitude. If Congress has
not deolared an act done within a State
to be crime against the United States,
the Courts have no power to treat as
snoh—“United, States vs. Hudson, 7
Oranoh., 32.” It is not oiaimed that
there is any statate whicb can reach
this oaae unless it be the one in ques
tion. Looking then to this statute, we
find its first seotion provides that all
oitizens of the United States who are or
shall be otherwise qualified by law to
vote at any election, Am, shall be en
titled and allowed to vote thereat with
out distinction of race, oolor or previous
condition of servitude, any constitution,
Ao., of the State notwithstanding. This
simply declares the right without pro
viding punishment for its violation. The
seoond seotion provides lor the punish
ment of aay offioer oharged with the
duty of furnishing to oitizens an
opportunity to perform any act
which, by the Constitution and laws
of any State, is made a prerequisite or
qualification of voting, who shall omit
to give all oitizens of the United States
the same and equal opportunity to per
form such prerequisite and become
qualified on aooount of raoe, oolor or
previous condition of servitude of th>
applicant. This does not apply to or
iuclnde the inspectors of an election,
whose only duty it is to receive and
count the votes of oitizens designated
by law as voters, who have already be
come qualified to vote at the eleotion.
The third seotion is to the effeot that
whenever by or under the constitution
or laws of any State, Am, any act is or
shall be required to be done by any citi
zen as a prerequisite to quality or enti
tle him to vote, the offer of suoh citizen
to perform the aot required to be done,
as aforesaid, shall, if it fail to be carried
into execution by reason of wrongful aot
or omission, as aforesaid, of the person
or officer oharged with the duty of re
ceiving or permitting suoh performance,
or offer to perform, or acting thereon,
be deemed and held as a performance in
law of suoh act, find the person so offer
ing and failing, as aforesaid, and being
otherwise qualified, shall be entitled to
vote in the same manner and to the same
extent as if he had in faot performed
suoh act, and any judge, inspector, or
other officer of election whose daty it is
to receive, oonnt, Ac., or to give effeot
to the vote of any such oitizen who shall
wrongfully refuse, or omit to receive,
Ao., the vote of such oitizen npon rep
resentation by him of his affidavit
stating suoh offer, and the time and
place thereof, and the name of the per
son or officer whole duty it was to act
thereon, and that he was wrongfully
prevented by suoh person or offioer from
performing snob act, snail, for every
such offense, forfeit and pay, Ao. The
fourth section provides for the punish
ment of any person who shall, by force,
bribery, threats, intimidation or other
unlawful means binder, delay, Ac., or
shall continue with others to hinder,
delay, prevent or obstruct any citizen
from doing any act required to be done
to qualify him to vote or from voting at
any election.
The seoond count in the indiotment is
based upon the fourth seotion of this
act and the fourth upon the third sec
tion. Bights and immunities created
by or dependent npon the Constitution
of the United States oan be proteoted
by Congress. The form and the manner
of the protection may be such as Con
gress in the legitimate exercise of its
legislative discretion shall provide.—
These may be varied to meet the neces
sities of the particular right to be pro
tected. The Fifteenth Amendment does
not confer the right of suffrage npon
anyone. It prevents the States or the
United States, however, from giving
preference to one oitizen of the United
States over another on account of race,
oolor or previons condition ot servitude.
Before its adoption this could not be
done. It was as muoh in the power of a
State to exolude oitizens of the United
States from voting on account of race,
Ao., as it was on aooonnt of age, proper
ty or eduoation. Now it is not. Pre
vious to this amendment there was
no constitutional guaranty against
this discrimination. Now there is.—
It follows that the amendment has
invested the oitizens of the United
States with anew constitutional
right, which is within the protective
power of Congress. That right is ex
emption from discrimination in the ex
ercise of the elective franchise of raoe,
oolor, Ao. This, under the express pro
vision of the second section of the
amendment, Congress may enforce by
“appropriate legislation.” This leads ns
to inquire whether the act now under
consideration is “appropriate legisla
tion” for that purpose. The power of
Congress to legislate at all upon the
subject of voting at State elections rests
upon this amendment.
The effect of artiole 1, section 4, of the
Cbustitntion in respeot to elections for
Senators and Representatives is not
now under consideration. It has not
been contended, nor can it be, that the
amendment confers authority to impose
penalty for every wrongful refusal to
receive the vote of a qualified eleotor at
State elections. It is only where the
wrongful refusal at suoh an election is
because of race, color or previous con
dition of servitude that Congress oan in
terfere and provide for its punishment.
If, therefore, the 3d and 4th sections of
the aot are beyond that limit they
are nnanthorized. The third section
does not in express terms limit the
offense of sn inspector of elections, for
which the punishment is provided to a
wrongful discrimination on account of
race, Ac. This is conceded, bat it is
urged that when this seotion is con
strued with those whioh precede it, and
to whioh, as is oiaimed, it refers, is so
limited. The argument is that the only
wrongful aot on the part of the offioer,
whose daty it is to reoeive or permit the
requisite qualification, which can dis
pense with actual qualification under
the State laws and snbstitnte the pre
scribed affidavit therefor, is that men
tioned and prohibited in 'section 2, to
wit, discrimination on account of raoe,
Ao., and that consequently seotion 3 is
confined in its operation to the same
wrongful discrimination. This is a
penal statute, anti must be construed
strictly; not so strictly, indeed, as to
defeat the clear intention of Congress,
but the words employed mast be under
stood in the sense they were obviously
used (United States va. Wiltberger, 5
Wheat. 85). If, taking the whole statute
together, it is apparent that it was not
the intention of Congress thns to limit
the operation of the act we oannot give
it that effect. The statute contemplates
a most important change in the eleotion
laws. Previous to its adoption the
States as a general rule regulated in
their own way all the details of *all elec
tions, they prescribed the qualifications
of voters and the manner in whioh
those offering to vote at an election
should make known their qualifi
cations to the officers in onarge.
This aot interferes with this prac
tice and prescribes rales not pro
vided by the laws of the States. It
substitutes, under oertain circumstances,
a performance wrongfully prevented for
the performance itself. If the eleotor
makes and presents his affidavit in the
form and to the effeot prescribed, the
inspectors are to treat this as the
equivalent of the specified requirement
of the State law. This is s radical
change in the practice, and the statute
which creates it should be explicit ia its
terms. Nothing should be left to con
struction if it can be avoided. The law
ought not to be in such a condition that
the elector may aot upon one idea of its
meaning and the inspector npon an
other. The eleotor, under the provis
ions of the atatnte, is only reqnired to
state in bis affidavit that he has been
wrongfully prevented by the offioer from
qualifying. There are no words of lim
itation in this part of the seotion. In a
case like this, if an affidavit is in the
language of the statute it onght to be
sufficient both for the voter and for the
inspector. Laws which prohibit the do
ing of things and provide a punishment
for their violation shonld have no doa
ble meaning. A citizen shonld not un
neoessarily be placed where, by an hon
est error in the construction of a penal
statate, he may be subjected to a prose
cution for a false oath, and an inspector
of elections should pot he put in jeop
ardy because he, with equal honesty,
entertains an opposite opinion.
If this statute limits the wrongful act
which will justify the affidavit to dis
crimination on account of race, Ao., ]
then a oitiaen who makes an affidavit 1
that he has been wrongfully prevented <
by the officer, whioh is true in the ordi- j
nary sense of that term, subjects him
self to indiotment and trial, if not to
conviction, because it is not true that he
has been prevented by such a wrongful
act as the statute contemplated, and if
there is no such limitation, bnt any
wrongful act of exclusion will justify
the affidavit and give the right to vote
without the actual performance of the
prerequisite, then the inspector who re
jects the vote because he reads the law
in its limited sense, and thinks it is con
fined to a wrongful discrimination on
account of race, Ac., snbjects himself to
prosecution, if not to punishment, be
cause be has misconstrued the law.
Penal statutes ought not to be expressed
in language so uncertain. If the Legis
lature undertakes to define by statute a
new offense and provide for its punish
ment, it shonid express its will in lan
guage that need not deceive the common
mind. Every man shonid be able to
know with certainty when he is commit
ting a crime, bnt when we go beyond the
third aeotion and read the fourth, we
find there no words of limitation or ref
erence even that can be construed as
manifesting any intention to confine |te
provisions to the terms of the Fifteenth
Amendment. That section has for its
object tiie punishment of all persona
who by force, bribery, &a, hinder, de
lay, Ac., any person from qualifying or
voting. In view of all these faots we
feel compelled to say that, in our opinion,
the language of the third and fourth
seotions does not confine their operation
to unlawful discrimination on account of
race, Ao. If Congress had the power to
provide generally for the punishment of
those who unlawfully interfere to pre
vent the exeroise of the elective franchise
without regard to suoh discrimination,
the language of these seotions would be
broad enough for that purpose.
It remains now to oonsider whether a
statute so general as this in its pro
visions oan be made available for tha
punishment of those who may be guilty
of nnlawfnl discrimination against citi
zens of the United States while exerois
ing the eleotive franchise on acoonnt of
their raoe, Ao. There is no attempt in
the seotions now nnder consideration to
provide specially for suoh an offense.
If the ease is provide? for at all, it is
because it comes under the general pro
hibition against any wrongfnl act or
unlawful obstruction in this particular.
We are, therefore, direotly called upon
to decide whether a penal statute, en
acted by Congress, with its limited pow
ers, whioh provides in general language,
broad enough to cover wrongful acts
without as. well as within the constitu
tional jurisdiction, oan be limited by
judicial construction, so as to make it
operate only on that whioh Congress
may rightfully prohibit and punish.
For thiß purpose we must take these
sections of the statute as they are.
We are not able to rejeot a part whioh
is unconstitutional and retain the re
mainder, beoanse it is not possible to
separate that whioh is unconstitutional,
if there be any suoh, from that whioh is
not. The proposed effeot is not to be
attained by striking out or disregarding
words that are in the seotion, bat by in
serting those that are not now there.
Each of the sections must stand as a
whole, or fall altogether. The language
is plain. There is no room for construc
tion unless it be as to the effeot of the
Constitution. The question then to be
determined is whether we oan introduce
w.rds of limitation into a penal statate
so as to make it speeifio, when, as ex
pressed, it is general only. 'lt would
certainly be dangerous if the Legisla
ture oould set a net large euuugli to
catch all possible offenders and leave it
to the Courts to step in, and say who
oonld be rightfully detained and who
should be set at large. This would to
some extent snbstitnte the judioial for
the legislative department of the Gov
ernment. The Courts enforce the legis
lative will, when ascertained, if within
constitutional grant of power. Within
its legitimate sphere Congress is su
preme and beyond the oontrol of the
Courts; but if it steps outside of its
constitutional limitations and attempts
that whioh is beyond its reaoh, the
Courts are authorized to, and when
called npon, in due oonrse of legal pro
ceedings, must annul its euoroaohmenta
upon the reserved power of States and
the people. To limit this statate in the
manner now asked for would be to make
anew law, not to enforce an old one.
This is no part of duty; we must, there
fore, decide that Congress has not, as
yet, provided by appropriate legislation
for the punishment of the offense
oharged in the indiotment, and that the
Circuit Court properly sustained the
demurrers and gave judgment for tha
defendants.
This makes it unnecessary to answer
any of the other questions certified,
sinoe the law whioh gives the presiding
Judge the casting vote in eases of divi
sion, and authorizes a judgment in ac
cordance with his opinion. (Rev. Stat.,
sec. 650.) If we find that the judgment
as rendered is oorreot we need not do
more than affirm. If, however, we re
verse, all questions certified, whioh may
be considered in the final determination
of the oase, according to the opinion we
express, should be answered. The judg
ment of the Cirouit Court is affirmed.
Dissenting—Mr. Justioe Hunt
Mr. Justioe Clifford dissented from
the opinion but conourred in the judg
ment.
THE COURSE OF COTTON.
Weakly Review of the New York market.
(JVieto York Daily Bulletin .l
t Sinoe our last review a few fluctua
tions have taken place, but on the whole
the torn has been upward and values
generally are higher. In short, while
the bearish feeling oannot be said to
have disappeared, the bulls have gained
a very deoided foothold, and the blue,
disoonraging tone so long prevailing
has given place to feeling of compara
tive cheerfulness, with an oooasional de
velopment of considerable buoyancy
and animation. From abroad the advices
have come to hand stronger and more
buoyant, with the price again above fijd,
and many operators inclined to the be
lief that Liverpool has recovered from
the panicky feeling and may in futnre
be depended upon to show a little more
stamina, especially as orders have come
out for the purchase of actual ootton,
and our shippers have not only manifest
ed increased interest, but seldom hesi
tated to negotiate npon really desirable
lots at market rates. Receipts at the
ports, too, have fallen off some
what more freely than had been
calculated upon by the sanguine
believers in an extraodinary crop,
and this with very unfavorably
weather reports has acted as an ad
ditional incentive to increase values.
On the other side of the question we still
find a disposition in many quarters to
attribute the upward turn in the main
to speculative manipnlations. Good
reasons for a check to thedeoline are ad
mitted and possibly the natural slight
reaction after a heavy break, bnt it ia
claimed that there is no reason for any
deoided advanee on the present outlook,
and if the upward turn is allowed to go
much further it will generate an un
healthy condition of affairs und possibly
disaster. There is also to be found
those who believe that mdre ootton re
mains in the South than ourrent receipts
would seem to indioate and that the high
er prioes most draw this out. Fer tha
present, however, the selling interest
has the advantage and is using every ef
fort to make amends for the adverse oir
onmstanoes nnder which it has been
placed for some months past.
Spots have sold very well, the most
enooraging feature being an increased
movements on foreign aooonnt. Ship
pers have exhibited a fair amount of
care and fignred closely on quality and
cost, but wbeD finding a parcel well suit
ed to their wants were generally inolined
to purchase. From spinners the call
has been of abont the usual magnitude,
and shown no really new features. Bay
ers come in a* they want supplies, pick
oat enough to carry them along through
present necessities, and can seldom be
ooaxed into operating further. Prices
have advanoed abont fo per lb. and the
tone was steady to firm throughout, but
holders have as a rule kept enough stock
available to satisfy the outlet presented.
Gontraots have sold with freedom, and
a pretty quick movement at times, and
with the exception of the usual temporary
ohecks, values have gradually worked up
wards on all months. The stimulating
influence upon wbieh the improvement
was bas%a we have noted above,
and the advance was aided materially by
the nervous shorts, who, though affect
ing to believe the stronger tone to the
unwarranted, have been covering quite
freely on all months. This month and
next, however, have been objects of par
ticular interest, and were ran np more
rapidly and held stronger than the later
ones. There has been a considerable
amount of purchasing oq fresh invest
ment and an infusion of an ontside or
new element, which ia also considered
an encouraging feature. It ia reported
that shippers nave been purchasing free
ly for April, which/ if true, must have
an important influence npon the issue of
notices for that month. A feature of
the week is the first sales into the next
crop, the opening transaction being 100
bales for November at 14e. The eloae
of the week was the strongest and high
est, the decidedly unfavorable weather
reports, with indications of an overflow
and stiff markets abroad, coupled with
a more general oovering, and the deser
tion of some of the leading "bears” to
the "long” side, forming a good basis
for improvement.
The State Lunatic Asylum.— An ap
plication ws made a few days since for
the admission of an insane person in
this oity into the State Lunatic Asylum
at Milleageville. Dr. Green, the Super
intendent, replied as follows to the
party making the application :
Deab Sib—Your fetter has been re-
ceived and properly considered, bnt I
greatly regret to state that it is not at
present practicable to reoeive the patient
in whose behalf you write. The insti
tution is really dangerously crowded,
and we can reoeive no patient except aa
a vacancy oooprs, sad we have now on
record some seventy applications. The
Legislature having refused to do any
thing for extending the means of accom
modating them, it is not in onr power to
say when any new applicant oan prob
ably be received. I was obliged to re
quire a patient brought here this after
noon to be taken back. There are many
of these unfortunates now languishing
in the cennty prisons, and it is sur
prising, to say the least of it, that the
Legislators should have disregarded en
tirely the appeals of my report in their
behalf. Yours, very respectfully,
Thos. F. Green, Supt., etc.
London, April I.—The bark Chatham,
from Wilmington, N. 0., for Rotterdam,
whieh was abandoned by her crew ana a
prize crew put on board by the steamer
St. Louis, arrived at Falmouth to-day
with the loss of bulwarks, sails, jibboom
and spanker boom.