United States v. Watson

• Decision Date: 07 July 1883
• Citation: 17 F. 145
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. WATSON and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

17 F. 145

UNITED STATES v. WATSON and others.

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Western Division.

July 7, 1883

G. C Chandler, U.S. Atty., for the United States.

J. W C. Watson, and H. A. Barr, for defendants.

HILL J.

The questions now for decision arise upon defendants' motion to quash the information against them. The information in substance states and charges as follows: That an election was held in the second congressional district of this state, on the seventh day of November, 1882, for a representative for said district in the forty-eighth congress of the United States; that the defendants conspired, confederated, and agreed together to procure from the governor, lieutenant governor, and secretary of state of this state the appointment of one Dunlap as one of the commissioners of election for Marshall county; that said Dunlap was wholly unsuitable to discharge the duties of said office; and that there were competent persons of different political parties then and there to discharge the duties of said office who could have been appointed to discharge the duties of said office of commissioner of election for said county. The information further charges that said defendants conspired combined, confederated, and agreed together to procure one Johnston to be appointed one of the inspectors for said election for the eastern precinct of the town of Holly Springs, and that said Johnston was then and there wholly illiterate, unable to read or write, and not a fit or suitable person to discharge the duties of said office. The information further states the names of the county commissioners for said election for the counties of De Soto Lafayette, Benton, Tippah, and Marshall, respectively, and charges that it was the duty of said commissioners, within 10 days after said election, to make out and transmit to the secretary of state of said state a statement of the whole number of votes given in their respective counties for each candidate voted for at said election. The information charges that the defendants did knowingly and unlawfully conspire confederate, and agree among themselves to advise, counsel, and procure all the said commissioners of election aforesaid to omit, refuse, and neglect to perform their duties in relation to the making the returns of said election in manner and form as aforesaid, and did then and there invite and solicit the assistance of other persons, naming them, to incite, counsel, procure, and advise the said commissioners of election to change their statement to the secretary of state of the votes cast in their respective counties,-- cast for the persons voted for at said election,-- so as to make only a partial statement of the votes cast as aforesaid for representative in congress aforesaid. The information further charges that the defendants combined, confederated, conspired, and agreed together to counsel, advise, and procure the commissioners of election for Marshall county to transmit, with their statement of all the votes cast at said election for each candidate for representative in congress as aforesaid, a protest or statement to the effect that their statement of votes of said county so transmitted was made under the influence or threats of J. R. Chalmers and the United States attorney for said district, which was scandalous in this: that it was calculated and intended to vitiate and destroy their own official statement of the votes so cast and transmitted by them. The information then charges that the defendants did then and there unlawfully and knowingly conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, by unlawful means, by advice, counsel, and procurement, aforesaid, and by other means unknown to the district attorney, to procure from the secretary of the state of Mississippi a false count of the votes cast for representative in congress aforesaid, and from the governor of said state a certificate of the election of Van H. Manning as representative as aforesaid, well knowing that then and there he, the said Van H. Manning, had not received the largest number of votes given in at said election, and well knowing that James R. Chalmers had received the largest number of votes given in at said election, and that he was lawfully and duly elected as such representative in congress, and was entitled to said certificate. The objection taken to the information, and grounds relied upon to sustain the motion insisted upon in argument, are-- First, that it charges no offense known to the law; and, secondly, that it charges different...