Chavez v. United States

• Decision Date: 15 November 1919
• Docket Number: 5113.
• Citation: 261 F. 174
• Parties: CHAVEZ et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

261 F. 174

CHAVEZ et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 5113.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

November 15, 1919

John R McFie and A. M. Edwards, both of Santa Fe, N.M., for plaintiffs in error.

Before HOOK, Circuit Judge, and AMIDON and BOOTH, District Judges.

HOOK Circuit Judge.

Chavez and others were convicted and sentenced for violating section 19, Criminal Code (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1092 (Comp. St. Sec. 10183)), which makes it a crime to 'conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ' The indictment charged that the defendants were the judges and clerks in a precinct in McKinley county, N.M., at an election November 7, 1916, at which certain persons named were candidates for presidential electors, United States Senator and Representative in Congress; that defendants conspired 'to injure and oppress certain citizens of the sad state and of the United States in the free exercise and enjoyment of certain' federal rights and privileges; 'that is to say, the rights and privileges appertaining to the said several candidates, and to all the legally qualified voters at said election voting in said state of New Mexico (the latter forming a class of persons not capable of individual designation herein because of the large number thereof) ' It then states that the right mentioned is of having all legal votes cast properly received, counted, and returned, of having only such votes cast, counted, and returned, and of having the election determined accordingly. Finally, there is a specification of the means and methods whereby defendants were to accomplish the object of the conspiracy. We have italicized certain quoted parts of the indictment to bring prominently into view the dominant character of the crime charged.

It was held in United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220, 38 Sup.Ct.

269, 62 L.Ed. 676, that an indictment much like the one before us did not charge an offense under section 19, Criminal Code. It was there contended by the government that the federal rights or privileges protected by the statute embraced the right of the candidates and of the lawful voters at the election that the election should be fairly and honestly conducted; but the court held that it meant only a definite, personal right such as that of the individual to...