United States v. Amsden
Decision Date | 04 May 1881 |
Citation | 6 F. 819 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. AMSDEN and others. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Indiana |
Chas L. Holstein, U.S. Att'y, and L. H. Richardson, Ass't for the government.
T. A Hendricks, Lewis Jordan, and O. J. Glessner, for defendants.
GRESHAM D.J.
The indictment contains six counts, all based upon section 5 of what is known as the 'Enforcement Act,' (16 St. 140; Rev.St. 5507.) The first count charges that on the fifth day of April, 1880, an election was held under the laws of Indiana for township officers, in and for Addison township Shelby county, Indiana; that Thomas Wilson, a colored man, was then and there a citizen and an inhabitant of said township, to whom the right of suffrage was guarantied by the fifteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, and a legal voter at said election; and that by threats of violence the defendants hindered, prevented, and intimidated the said Wilson from exercising the right of suffrage at said election so guarantied to him by the fifteenth amendment. The remaining counts need not be noticed further than to say that on the motion to quash they present the same questions as the first. Section 1 of the enforcement act provides that all citizens of the United States, who are otherwise qualified, shall be entitled to vote at all elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, any constitution or law of the state to the contrary notwithstanding. This section, however, provides no punishment for its violation. Section 2 provides that officers whose duty it is to afford opportunity to citizens to perform an act which by the constitution or laws of any state is made a prerequisite or qualification of voting, who refuse or knowingly omit to furnish the required opportunity on account of race, etc., shall be punished for misdemeanor. Section 3 provides that an offer by any citizen to perform the act which is a prerequisite or qualification of voting shall have the same effect as performance, and any judge or inspector of election who shall wrongfully refuse or omit to receive or count the vote of such citizen, when furnished by him with his affidavit showing that he has made such offer, shall be punished, etc. Section 4 provides that any person who be force, bribery, threats, intimidation, or other unlawful means, hinders, delays, prevents, or obstructs, or combines with others to hinder, delay, or obstruct, any citizen from doing any act required to be done to qualify him to vote or from voting at any election, shall be punished, etc. Section 5 reads as follows: 'Section 6 provides that if two or more persons shall band together, or go in disguise on the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of the act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his free enjoyment of any right secured to him by the constitution and laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be deemed guilty of felony.
The fifteenth amendment, which, it is claimed by the government, authorizes the enactment of the fifth section of the 'enforcement act,' reads as follows:
In the case of The United States v. Reese,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dunn v. United States
...without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. See, also, United States v. Amsden, D. C., 6 F. 819, Whitman v. National Bank of Oxford, 176 U.S. 559, 20 S.Ct. 477, 44 L. Ed. 590, and Ex parte McNaught, 23 Okl. 285, 100 P. 27, an......
-
United States v. Harvey
...345 U.S. 461, 73 S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152, rehearing denied, 345 U.S. 1003, 73 S. Ct. 1128, 97 L.Ed. 1408 (1953); United States v. Amsden, 6 F. 819 (D.C.Ind. 1881); United States v. Morris, 125 F. 322 (E.D.Ark.1903); Karem v. United States, 121 F. 250, 61 L.R.A. 437, (C.A. 6, 1903); Hawkins......