*1 n IN RE COY. ' Statement Case.
IN RE COY. FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM APPEAL THE INDIANA. DISTRICT OF Argued 1395. 16, 17, 14, 1888. No. 1888. Decided April May Congress and the make it a statutes of Indiana acts The criminal elections, officer, an elec- at or other election which for an held, the safe Congress a member of is is committed whom tion books, poll delivery keeping and the board of canvassers sheets, votes, perform tally and the certificates of to fail or omit to delivery. safe-keeping and this conspiracy to induce in a court of for a the United States indictment In an n duty, the documents mentioned in order that officers to omit such these tampered persons improper who with might the hands of come to prove returns, necessary allege that it was falsified the is not conspirators of the member of to affect the of these intention place, the returns which Congress at that who was voted for books, sheets, for state poll those and certificates with in the same officers. protect poll the vote authority contain books which The might from the danger arise for a member of from which tamper7 exposure or other to the chance of falsification of these pur- question, beyond because the ing, danger is not removed and this conspirators falsify as to state officers pose the returns was to certificates, of the mem- and not those in the same found books Congress. ber prisoner by'sentence corpus, of a held of habeas case The writ court, prisoner only it is that the court when shown can release the inquiry jurisdiction try punish the offence. The him for no had specific such alle- is in the indictment case is not whether there demurrer, good charge make it on gation of the details of the would offences of a class of which the indictment describes but whether guilty. jurisdiction, alleges to be If the defendant court pronounced imprisonment judgment of case in record of the offence, discharged. charge of such he should no contains specifically charged present an offeneé prisoners case are The States, by a Indiana and of the United against the election laws of laws; conspiracy holds that the District those and this court to violate try pun- jurisdiction had for Indiana of the United States Court offence, refusing judgment of the Circuit Court for that ish them corpus accordingly affirmed. of habeas the writ District for a writ-of habeas corpus. petition Tuts District of Indiana States for the of the United Attorney TERM, Opinion the Court. oí the demurrer was sustained demurred petition, refused. The the writ ease is appealed. petitioners *2 stated opinion. and Mr. D. W. for
Mr. F. McNutt Voorhees Gyrus appel- and Mr. Mr. John G. McNutt A. McNutt Finley lants. were on the brief. appellants’ B. and Mr. for
Mr. E. Sellers General Attorney appellee. Miller Mr. the the Justice delivered of court. opinion an .from Circuit the This is the Court of United States appeal for the District Indiana. in that
The case court arose for a writ upon application made on behalf Simeon habeas corpus William Coy F. A. whose Bernhamer, re- were petition alleged they their detained in strained of the of Edward liberty custody the marshal of the United States the for District Hawkins, Isaac sheriff Marion in Indiana, King, County the who claimed to hold under the prisoners authority of the States of a United District Court. The judgment peti- tion sets forth nature of which proceedings and tried in that court, were indicted wherein were found in the indictment. The sen- guilty charges specified tence the court said William A. F. was that Bernhamer make his fine to in the sum of States one thousand and that dollars, he be the State Prison North imprisoned for (of of one the said State) year; period Simeon make the sum Coy his fine to United States one hundred and that he be the said dollars, imprisoned State for the months.” The prison period eighteen prison- ers were committed thereupon marshal, charge in whose at the time when this was custody they petition filed. also at- indictment, petitioners copy presented
tached to their no petition, they say charges the United and that the federal district court and the had no thereof grand jury jurisdiction premises.
IN EE COY. action, that the of said grand jury They allege returning and of the court and marshal thereof indictment, taking them of their them into under custody restraining liberty virtue of order and commitment of said judgment, and the court, void, wholly imprisonment petitioners .unlawful. this for writ of
To habeas a de- petition, praying corpus, murrer filed United States for said attorney on behalf of the marshal and the district sheriff. Upon that demurrer it was sustained the .Circuit Court,1 hearing request By opinion following of Mr. Miller the Justice of Mr. Justice Harlan, 794, Coy, Rep. brief, In re 31 Fed. taken from the Government’s repeated offence, here. It relates to a different indictment for the same directly upon questions and bears discussed the court. petitioner, Coy, process Harlan, custody J. The is in under based indictments in the District two Court the United States the District *3 of Indiana. all, charged, with He claims that that which he is if crimes at are crimes States; against consequently, and against the the United jurisdiction proceed against Court is the District without to him. If this sound, prisoner discharged. parte contention be the is entitled to be Ex Rowland, 163; 604; Fisk, parte parte Lange, 18 Wall. Ex 104 S. Ex U. 113 718, custody 724. he must be remanded to the S. Otherwise U. proper charged. to be tried for the officer offences Stat., provides the indictments is under Bev. of 5440 which One § “ persons conspire any against to commit offence if or more either two any any or to defraud the manner .States United States or for United parties purpose, object and one or more of such do act to effect the parties conspiracy conspiracy, all the to penalty shall be liable to a dollars, Imprisonment more than ten thousand or to of not for not more years, imprisonment, or to both fine and than two in the discretion of the Stat., 17, 1879, 8, 5446 Bev. as May court.” amended the act of § c. first count of that Stat. 4. The charges Perkins, indictment that Samuel E. Spaan, Coy, Henry Councilman, Simeon John H. Metcalf, Charles N. John Sullivan, Beck, Budd, Albert T. George Mattler, E. W. Stephen William B. Bernhamer, and A. John L. conspire, confederate, Beardon did agree and together, among themselves, and between to commit an there, and did then and unlawfully, knowingly, and feloni- conspire, ously, combine, then and there confederate, agree together, and themselves, among induce, aid, and counsel; between procure, to and advise Hisey unlawfully one' Allen neglect reipiired perform' duty and omit to imposed by the and laws of relating affecting the State of Indiana to and had Marion,- certain election and held county at and in the the1State ' TERM, writ as írom to issue the refused prayed petition. which took an appeal prisoners Supreme' this judgment Indiana, precinct of the and at the second thirteenth District and ward aforesaid, Indianapolis, county city in the of Marion on the 2d ajd. law, 1886, November, pursuant Represen- at election a day Congressional District of the Seventh Indiana for tative safely for, unlawfully neglect keep and omit to To his wit: voted lists, papers, poll tally custody and certificates of possession and said he, Hisey, being Allen precinct; the said then and an there at said election wit, inspector of said election at the second officer of said Indianapolis aforesaid, city of having precinct thirteenth ward of .the qualified duly having duly appointed, under the and laws of been thereto that, inspector; Indiana, acting and as such to effect the and State there, conspiracy, E. Perkins object the said Samuel then and after of said poll pre- lists of said tally election at said and one one of the cinct, of votes each of the number had and the certificate received office, precinct, designating signed by at election said the board at said precinct, him, deposited at had been judges said of said aforesaid, he, Hisey, inspector and as as Allen after the said the said list, paper, poll tally Hisey, had the said and certificate Allen received afore- said, purpose returning the same to the' board of canvassers of aforesaid, he, county of Marion for the said Samuel E. said election Perkins, there, unlawfully feloniously and counselling and did then and do, him, Hisey, means, and advising so to other the said Allen unlawful unknown, unlawfully jurors used to grand aforesaid effect the same him, procured purpose, unlawfully induced and the said Allen unlawful safely keep unlawfully neglect tally paper, poll Hisey, and omit said him, possession custody list, and the said and certificate Allen aforesaid, inspector Hisey, and said unlawful means as induced as and aforesaid, Hisey, to surrender procured Allen said de- Perkins, permit possession of the said Samuel.E. into the to and liver Perkins, possession him, to take have the E. and cus- said Samuel list, certificate, poll tally paper tally paper, the said tody said mutilate, alter, forge, unlawfully change, before the there then list, had been returned to and paper, and certificate canvassed county said election of of canvassers the board estimated *4 Perkins, aforesaid, he, being E. not said Samuel then and the Marion of election, being then and there a and of said officer an there possession to have of Indiana by and cus- the State laws authorized aforesaid, list, contrary poll tally paper, certificate to the tody of said States, peace against dignity the of the United the statute form of charges second count the defend- of America.” States United respect in offence same election in having committed a like ants with Indianapolis; twenty-third precinct ward third the second respect a like offence in having committed charges them with count precinct tenth ward. second in the election
IN RE COY.
Opinion of Court. which was and the same has Court, allowed, been very fully in this both on behalf and court, their on the argued part the government. against Coy charges other indictment is having alone. It him with advised, induced, unlawfully feloniously procured inspector at — precinct in election the third of the thirteenth ward with whom was — deposited list, paper, neg- and certificate of the election law, performance imposed duty, safely keep-
lect omit the possession ing said his documents in until delivered to the of can- board vassers, Perkins, by them and to surrender whom were altered and mutilated. failure, neglect, Under circumstances is the what or refusal an officer election, for, Representative per- Congress of an at a is voted him, officer, imposed upon State, duty form a as such law States? Stat., By provided if, Repre- any it is 5511 Rev. at § Delegate Congress, any person any. sentative or . . . interferes any duties; discharge manner with officer of such election in the of his or means, means, any any such or other unlawful induces .officer of an election, ascertain, duty announce, or officer it is whose or declare the election, document, any any certificate, give such or result or make or thereto, duty comply evidence relation violate or refuse to his aids, any same; counsels, procures, regulating the ... or or law or crime, any any hereby such . . . advises officer to do act made or any crime, duty hereby to do the omission is or at- omit of which made a so, tempt punished,” to do he shall etc. persons That the mentioned in counts indictment for the various conspiracy inspectors lawfully discharge of election in the were position appertaining argument, to that functions conceded in is not, conceded, and, aptly alleged in indictment. It is also if it were clear, examined, from the statutes of the be hereafter Certificate, document, duty give under a or make a or evidence in respective precincts. inspector, to the election their relation Each at comply duty, any violated or or who refused to with his law same, counselled, aided, every procured, regulating the as well one who violate, refuse, were, perform duty, advised him to or or omit to his accord- express section, guilty equally ing to the of this It words crime. clear, case, petitioner, Coy, other a crime if committed he aided, counselled, procured, or advised an at such election to vio- comply any regulating or late to refuse or omit to or with his law same. By provided: any “Every 5515 it is of an at officer election which § Representative for, Delegate or such officer is voted whether appointed any authority of election be created or under law district, state, territorial, the United or under or munici- *5 TERM, 1887. to us is there no The record very simple, being presented had of the the indictment . other statement proceedings upon perform any duty pal authority, neglects regard or refuses to in law or who States, required hy any any him of the law United or of such thereof; any duty, imposed; Territory violates so or who State or who unauthorized, any any thereby knowingly with intent to affect such does acts punished prescribed -; . . . in shall be sec- election or result thereof fifty-five tion hundred and eleven.” ” “ Observe, determining in intent not made an element the existence section, except specified in those cases where the of the offences by knowingly the law of the does an act unauthorized” United offender States, Territory by under whose sanction he ex the law of the State or neglect or of election. His refusal to ercises the functions of an officer Represen perform duty required by regard to an at whicha a law Congress for, an offence is made this section tative voted non-performance although is without an evil United intent; simply doing act “unauthorized” law is not while the of an punishable affect the election or the unless done with an intent to result public policy justified thereof. distinction is sound Whether.that department government law-making to determine. It was for the court, 5515, Jackson, commenting v. well said on United States § 549, Rep. 548, 25 Fed. 550: guard “Congress the election of seeks this statute to members unfairness, possible by compelling, pains Congress any .against under its penalties, every holding to a one concerned in the election strict and upon scrupulous every duty engaged. him observance of devolved while so legisla- . . . The evil intent consists in disobedience to law. power doing adjudge, adjudge, that the ture has the and does public judgment thing good; be or un- is not for the and whether its wise wise, citizen, always binding doing a it on the and the of it is crime. imposing particularly reference to that class of statutes This is so with public, public on officials in the exercise of' their functions. duties obeyed, is a legislative will must be and disobedience command of the crime, may punished as such.” certificate, proceed inquire alleged surrender I whether duty imposed upon any the in- tally paper, a violation of list was Representative spector at which as an officer of the election follows, was, plain words it in view was voted for. If States; statute, conse- against the an offence that he committed procure, ad- conspired one who quently, induce or those who duty by vised, induced, counselled, negléct procured of violate his him to an offence surrendering also committed to Perkins the election against the United States. upon inspectors at an elec- imposed by the of the State The duties laws set forth Representative Congress is voted for are tion at c. 56 of 1881. of the Revised of the State Statutes IN RE COY. Opinion, of the .Court. in that instrument and the itself,
than is contained judgment the trial. the court As the Circuit Court refused to *6 trustees, office, Township by inspectors virtue are of their election polls precincts opening the of the which reside. Prior to the who, political parties, inspector, appoint judges with the two of different judges of election. Indiana. 4G88. constitute board Rev. Stat. § required inspector, opened, before the is take an and the election support States and of the and oath to the Constitution of the United by faithfully impartially assigned discharge the and duties law. Id. inspector election. Id. 4692. The is the chairman of the board of 4695. § § polls and the When the are closed is made the of himself votes, open judges to the ballot-box and count the the ballots be taken “ by inspector, open by one the shall them as he takes them out one out, who thereon, person printed read the name of or written and aloud each person every office is voted. He shall then hand and the for which such judges, to one examine the and hand it to the ballot of the who shall same judge, string it a thread of Id. 4710. No the other who shall on twine.” § done, except person counting can be the the the admitted to room where clerks, and two voters from members of board the sworn political party having 4711. to be voted for. Id. each candidates § sections of the statutes are as follows: of Indiana Other “ judges 4712. When the votes shall counted the board of shall Sec. be hands, stating under their the number of votes each make out certificate office, received, person number shall designating has and which be certificate, words; together of the and with one lists of written such inspector, papers, deposited tally with the or and one of the shall be voters by judges judges. one of selected the board with “ counted, e certificate 4713. 'As soon as the votes are and before Sec. ballots, out, prescribed judges foregoing as section is made of the shall, tally papers, in the of voters and one of the with one' lists clerks, by placed carefully securely presence judges and the in- and paper envelope presence spector, strong judges, in the in a and stout by tightly wax bag, shall then be and well with which closed sealed or county inspector at inspector, and shall be delivered clerk such possible period Thursday succeeding very next or on the earliest before tlio envelope election; inspector securely keep contain- and the said said shall therein, permit open envelope, papers no one to said ing the ballots'and and tamper papers said therein. And the de- touch or with ballots or or clerk, inspector envelope livery take and subscribe such said shall clerk, envelope, securely kept before said and the an oath said he has therein, that, papers envelope had been and and after said closed ballots clerks, presence had judges he not suf- him in the and sealed permitted person open envelope, seal said or or break the or fered tamper papers, ballot no broken said or touch with envelope opened knowledge; oath said his shall be seal such papers. in said clerk’s officewith other election filed cxxvir —47 vol. TERM,.. 1887.
n Opinion of the Court., writ of habeas there no return grant corpus mar- shal so sheriff, that we have none of the facts or evi- “ keep securely envelope sealed, 4714. shall The clerk said so Sec. therein, papers the ballots the same condition itas was received opened by inspector, (unless him from his office said canvassers, presence period provided), the board of herein But, preserve months. six such election contested when he shall them undetermined, long subject so such contest is the order the court trying . such . . contest. inspectors township precinct, judges Sf.c. each or the certificates, poll-books, tally papers of election to whom the shall have act, provided for in been delivered as vassers, this shall a board of can- constitute certificates, lists, who shall canvass estimate purpose they returned’ member of board: each for which court-house, Thursday succeeding shall assemble at the election, on the next such p.m. between the hours ten a.m. and six o’clock “ Sec. 4716. The members of who shall at such board assemble place chairman, time shall select one of their number as and the clerk *7 Circuit Court shall act as their clerk. “ n board, .organized, carefully compare Sec. 4717. Such shall when and it, papers the aggregate examine intrusted to and and tabulate from them county; up by of a the vote the statement of be which shall drawn the clerk, persons for, office, and the shall contain names of the the voted the precinct given township person, number of in each votes to each the county, given of to each in aggregate number votes the and also the num- given; by signed ber votes of statement shall be each which member of sheet, certificates, board; poll-books, together which canvass such with tally papers, clerk, by shall be delivered to the him filed in his him, preserved open by inspection The any office. same shall be to the legal county voter of the or district or State.” . large great These statutes have been referred to at in order to show the by fraud, guard against taken care the State the ballot secure a cor- canvass of rect the votes cast and an honest declaration of the result. It appears provisions special that the custody laws of Indiana contain for the papers ballots, relating general of two sets of (1) elections: one of voters, tally papers, up envelope paper the lists and one of the sealed in a bag, inspector custody county must be delivered the into the the (2) clerk. prepared judges, showing certificate the board of the office, received, number each designating candidate the to- votes gether tally papers, with one of the lists of one of voters and the must be inspector,” “deposited with the him the board of returned be canvassers, Thursday pur- succeeding who meet on the the election for the “ certificates, lists, pose canvassing estimating the papers.” papers present They To the latter the indictments refer. are the w;ere which, papers charged, “deposited” inspector by it is with the the RE COY.
IN Opinion of'the Court. in the indictment. as are detailed the case they in except
dence
sev-
the
raised
petitioners,
supported
The only question
Perkins,
election, and,
forged,
being surrendered to
after
board of
altered, and mutilated.
not,
terms,
express
in
that
local statute does
be observed
the
It will
keep
papers
custody,
his
manual
require
those
actual
him,
deposited”
period intervening
during
after
with
whole
con-
he
them the board of canvassers.
It
therefore
and before
returns
any
the surrender of them Perkins was not violation
tended that
inspector,
duty imposed
be
a crime unless
and could not
deemed
way
for
affect
the result of
done with the intent to
in some
that,
Representative
charged in
Congress;
as
is not
the indict-
intent,
alleged
with such
ment
surrender of the election
that
alleged forgeries
fact
the result of
that
affected
and alterations
appear
any
Representative
Congress,
that
it does not
the election for
against the
United States was committed.
positions,
prisoner
support
famil
invoke the
In
of these
counsel for the
is,
penal
strictly;
iar rule that
statutes are to be construed
penalty
It is
him
inflicted.
St. 634.
benefit of
whom the
Dwar.
application
case;
present
for the
rule
doubtful whether that
has
Indiana,
referred, merely regulate the conduct
to which we have
statutes
general
the officers
elections in
and define the duties of
case,
it, however,
conceded,
purposes of this
elections. Let
for the
crime,
that,
prisoner
determining
committed
whether
relating to the
and the
statutes
Indiana
statutes
the United States
whole,
Representatives
be inter
election of
as a
should
taken
penal
preted
strictly,
be lib
and not
remedial
tó
statutes
enactments
erally
suppress
public wrongs against
construed in order to
the frauds and
197,
Taylor
210;
which
are directed.
v.
United
How.
Hartwell,
inquiry
intent
as to the
States v.
fcion. This upon any juris- proposition but the broad statement diction of that upon person, inspector duty by depositing that the would not violate his It is said safe-keep- papers by in for after were received him some bank these consequently always ; it them in his ac- ing is contended he need not have depend deposit. custody. might manual This the mode of tual vault, placed in a in to box the bank and he alone had access If were box, custody. they might regarded in a such case be as in his actual that supposed papers might might be in his to hold the cases Other particular preservation. adopted by mode for their But be violated not specific charge in the character is us. The of doubtful now before no case inspector unlawfully Per- surrendered indictment is that kins, custody, that in- and he was right under the to their had no law who case, by Coy by Coy other case and his in one and in the to do so duced confederates. not state that the argument that the indictments do said in It also was Repre- for in relation to or at charged committed crimes in ease the ac- Congress. the fact that one Counsel overlook sentative'in induce, procure conspiracy and in the other charged a with cused induced, unlawfully inspector neglect procured Coy case “ relating required by perform duty of the State a the laws and omit to day . . . on the 2d of No- affecting held a certain election had and Representative law, vember, 1886, in Con- a pursuant which election at district, for,” voted Congressional of Indiana was gress for the Seventh by authorized law to be judicially that an election was such I know etc. knows, every judicial knowledge one held, of what take I must specified place in- in the at the time and fact held an election day held on the that the election was general averment dictment. “ pursuant that it is sufficient to show was one to law” fixed statute Representative legally for. could be voted a at which earnestly the board of that the certificate elec- insisted made it is But designat- received each showing the number votes tion ” respect separate to each candi- document to be deemed ing the office for, it related it one document so far as at least that was date voted paper so far as it and a different document for state offices candidates that, Representative Congress; for held to the election related showing specific the surrender of in the indictment averment absence procured question in one case to have been to Perkins documents co-defendants, by him and his with direct case prisoner and in other Representative court the district the vote reference words, proceed; jurisdiction in other be without held to must be and other of the certificate to Perkins mere surrender not, him, nothing appearing, and could deposited else documents made, against the United States. an offence legally he argument, conceded in not concur. It was I do these views In TERM, 1887. o,f
Opinion the Court. no crime offence under indictment the laws of the presents States. *10 statutes, .may question be inferred from the that the certificate in was in paper, one in that it the fact stated result of the election each as to candi- So, also, copy tally paper poll placed as to the date. of the list inspector. They regard of the hands none the less in were documents to Representative Congress, they election for in an because showed also the polls cast at number of votes the same for state officers. And we have inspector duty imposed by keep that the a seen was under to them in law canvassers, custody that, by until returned his to the board of Revised States, inspector Repre- of the United the at an election at a Statutes which Congress guilty against in is voted for is sentative of a crime the United perform, neglects any duty imposed if he or to States refuses or violates ” “ required upon regard by any of him to in such election law the or of the States State in which such election is held. is not diffi- United It require to the cult understand reasons which induced State to the the certifi- paper copy deposited each of cate one the list and to be safely kept by inspector by the until him returned to the board can- board, they changed If mutilated or before vassers. reach that their value legal regard in as evidence the election for to both state and national offi- cers, impaired men, might destroyed. skilfully by If altered bad the people expressed polls might of the as at the will be defeated. Common therefore, prudence, suggested necessity guarding against every the possibility papers of such mutilation or alteration. that end To these were required “deposited” inspector to be with the as soon the vote as was by judges holding prior counted the being the election. In them to their canvassers, represented returned to the board officer the both State the governments United States. The national and state were alike discharge public depositary. duty interested in faithful a the of his ''The capacity, documents may to him intrusted in that be said to been have the joint property governments. part of the two a To with them violation was duty States, his against and therefore a crime the United Representative Congress, because related to an election for in perform, of, because neglect duty his or refusal to or his im- violation ” “ posed upon by express him regard by law in the to such election is made States, punisha- Congress words of against the act an offence the United imprisonment, ble fine or obtain an canvass or both. In order to honest Representative votes cast at that which election for inspector’s her, respect duty the State relat- makes documents to ing to the duty Congress United made the act of consequently It States. necessary in the indictment out set precise Perkins, nature were nor made aver alternations affect, designed Repre- affected, for or in fact the result in Congress. papers question sentatve election for As related to the Representative containing the election Congress although evidence toas — RE COY. IN itself is of considerable indictment The length, although It'reads follows : of but one count. consisting for of the United within and States, jurors grand Indiana, sworn, District impanelled, charged for term the. United States aforesaid, at the court, inquire Indiana their aforesaid,, within and for District of upon that Simeon H. Coun- oath John Henry Coy, Spaan, present E. Albert T. Metcalf, Sullivan, Beck, Charles N. John cilman, Bernhamer, "W. F. A. Budd, Stephen..Mattler, "William George — inspector, officers the mere surrender of them Perkins state law, imposed hijn constituted an offence violation alleged reference to the without nature of complete forgeries. The offence of alterations Perkins; and when the latter received moment he surrendered case, them, prisoner in the one the offence of the offence case, co-conspirators complete. prisoner and his in the other also authority to enact- the statutes reference *11 open longer question an in the courts of been made is no the Union.' Such by provision legislation authorized 8f the Constitution which invests power Congress regulations as to the time and manner of make or,to Representatives Congress, regula holding for in alter such elections 1, prescribes. requirement tions as the State Article Section The Representatives per at are for shall officers of elections which such voted imposed by regard in form the duties the State such elections the effect, same, by legal Congress as if had in the first instance and direct in imposed legislation those officers. be extra duties those It would prescribe penalties ordinary if the for the indeed nation could non performance'of Representatives regard Congress in elections for in duties by exercising the at such It is imma those functions of officers elections. by appointed supervising the State. terial that such officers were When Representatives power Congress, in can be the elections for reached punished neglect of and for assume the duties judgments discharge. These views are sustained elaborate Siebold, Supreme parte 371; in Ex of the United 100 Ex Court States U. S. 399; Clarke, Yarbrough, 651; parte parte S. and Ex in 100U. U. S. which Congress, legislation power adopting regu either direct of integrity to secure the established State and freedom of elec lations chosen, Representatives placed upon Congress in at tions grounds Those cases cover that cannot shaken. the whole field argument. opinion jurisdic- that the Court of the United I am of District States proceed under these indictments. tion to discharge prisoner application must be de- therefore isIt so ordered. nied. n TERM, 1887. of said at district, late the district Reardon, L. afore-
and John of our Lord one November, the third of on said, year hundred and unlawfully, thousand eighty-six, knowingly eight and there confederate, did then and and conspire, feloniously and with one Samuel E. Perkins, combine agree together, in this, the United States to commit wit: aforesaid, and sworn as aforesaid, jurors impanelled grand 2d in November, that cn the do day present charge Lord hundred our one thousand eighty- year eight in for a an election six, Representative District of United States from Seventh Congressional in and for said State of was had and held Indiana, lawfully Indiana; Seventh District of county Congressional situated in Marion said city Indianapolis, November, are, said on said 2d year county, day of our Lord one thousand hundred and eighty-six, eight district, and that and constituted of said parts congressional at said election for so held said Representative district and in said Con- county city, Representative voted for at each and every precinct gress lawfully voting of said district and of said including pre- county city, cincts hereafter election one that at said named; particularly Allen served and was the lawful Hisey inspector [as] ward election at and for the second the thirteenth precinct John EL of said and at said election said city Indianapolis, of elec- Councilman served and was the lawful inspector, [as] of said tion at and for the second the fourth ward' precinct and that at election said Stephen city Indianapolis, at Mattler served lawful of election was the third and for the of the thirteenth ward of said city precinct *12 Schnhidt of and that at said election one Lorenz Indianapolis, as and was of election at and served the lawful inspector said of the first of the ward of city In- precinct twenty-third and one as and was the law- Joel EL Baker served dianapolis, n ful of Center of election at and for the sixth inspector precinct and one Becker said of Marion, Joseph township county at and for as and was the of election served lawful inspector of In- second of the eleventh ward city precinct IN EE COY. and aforesaid, one Andrew Oehler served as and
dianapolis lawful of at and was the election for the first inspector pre- the seventeenth of ward of said of and cinct city Indianapolis, Edwards was the lawful served as and of one John inspector and for the second election at ward precinct eighteenth said city Indianapolis. after That at and the close of the election and aforesaid, was made to the clerk of said and to until delivery county canvassers of said each of said the board county, inspec- his ballots, had in tors lawful'possession tally poll papers, certificates of of and and the board election lists, judges of which he was and had for the been precinct aforesaid; said ballots, and certificates lists, poll tally papers, evidence in to said contained election of each respect Rep- and do said aforesaid resentative grand jurors on third district, and at said said present.that day charge one hun- our lord thousand November, year eight said defendants Simeon dred and Coy, Henry eighty-six, N. Metcalf, H. Charles John E. Councilman, John Spaan, T. W. Budd, Mattler, Albert Sullivan, Beck, George Stephen L. A. and John Bernhamer, Reardon, William F. intending of said and returns unlawful election obtain possession muti- said so in the custody inspectors, feloniously the said alter, lists, late, forge, poll tally papers, change did and certificates judges unlawfully confederate, combine, and conspire, feloniously agree together, Samuel E. false and Perkins, unlawfully and with assertions, and statements, deceitful speeches, promises, means to unknown, unlawful to counsel, grand jurors other - and induce said Allen Lorenz assist, aid, procure, Hisey, H. Schmidt, Councilman, Mattler, John Joel H. Stephen Becker, Andrew Oehler, Edwards, John Baker, Joseph. aforesaid, them, and each of to omit, unlawfully inspectors and refuse the duties fail, perform imposed neglect, of them State Indiana them and each laws from harm and danger keep, safely guard, preserve lists, and certificates of the papers, judges papers, each the said them, so deposited inspectors, *13 TERM, Opinion of the Court. of until them delivered the board lawfully of respectively, of said canvassers of and to the clerk of Marion, said county and that to effect the of said county, object conspiracy E. said Samuel Perkins and advised, unlawfully persuaded, the said Allen as unlaw- aforesaid, procured Hisey, inspector deliver to and the said Samuel E. him, fully, negligently lists, and certificates of the Perkins, poll tally papers, of election with the said Allen him, judges deposited Hisey, for return to the canvassers of said be- of county, board fore the same had returned to said board been of and said E. Perkins and canvassers; Samuel Simeon and advised, the said Coy unlawfully procured persuaded, - Mattler and to deliver, unlawfully negligently Stephen Mattler, and the said consented to and did he, Stephen and deliver to then and there said unlawfully negligently and and lists, Perkins certificate tally Coy papers, poll him, the board with said election judges deposited Mattler, for the board of return canvassers said Stephen and before the same had been returned to canvassed county, said board of and the said E. canvassers; John Sullivan and and W. Budd received took from George unlawfully list, Lorenz and Schmidt certificate tally poll paper board of with said Lorenz election Schmidt judges deposited as aforesaid for return to board of canvassers aforesaid; John H. and in Councilman, dis- said negligently his to a with surrendered regard duiy, person- parted unknown, list, to the tally persons, grand jurors poll paper and certificate of the election with him, deposited judges Councilman, the said John for return H. to the board of can- vassers said ; received, Simeon Coy unlawfully procured from and took Andrew Oehler, aforesaid, poll list, certificate of election tally paper judges depos- ited him, with the said Andrew Oehler, aforesaid, re- turned to the board of canvassers of said and the county; defendants, Simeon Sullivan, John E. Coy, Henry Spaan, others of the to the ad- unknown,' defendants, grand jurors vised, the said Baker unlaw- Joel H. persuaded procured to some fully surrender deliver negligently m
IN RE COY. unknown, list, jurors grand persons, n and certificate judges deposited paper him for return to the said board and said de- canvassers; *14 Simeon John E. and fendants, Sullivan, Coy, Henry Spaan, to the defendants, unknown, advised, other grand jurors pro- said as Edwards, cured and John afore- persuaded inspector to and deliver and to surrender to said, unlawfully negligently as aforesaid un- some the jurors persons, grand of the and known, list, tally judges poll paper certificate election the said as Edwards, with John him, deposited board and canvassers; aforesaid to returned to the áSid Simeon H. Charles Councilman, said John Henry Spaan, Coy, T. W. Sullivan, Beck, N. John E. Albert Metcalf, George Bernhamer William E. A. and John Budd, Mattler, Stephen said A. Beardon William Bern- L. election procured election hamer as chairman of the of canvassers of said board and Marion, in and for said State district, said county refused said William E. A. as such Bernhamer, chairman, and and certificate of list, accept tally judges poll paper with H. Councilman as of election said John inspec- deposited first said H. Council- aforesaid, tor as when John presented until man to said of canvassers and the said board tally paper and election h-ad been certificate of the unlawfully judges and to effect the said altered and further object forged; Eden to one William H. said Simeon sent conspiracy, Coy and to other aforesaid, said Becker, Joseph inspec- to the with instruction tors, direction, unknown, jurors grand said and other re- Becker request Joseph inspectors, not .forthwith to return and deliver returns spectively, sealed to the clerk Cir- said contained bags but to unlaw- aforesaid, of Marion cuit Court county said Simeon said same him, bring Coy; fully E. Charles N. Samuel Perkins, Simeon Henry Coy, Spaan, T. Beck, E. W. Albert Metcalf, Sullivan, Budd, John George un- L. Beardon and said John jurors persons grand certificates of whom lists and known, tally papers, poll so deliv- election were surrendered judges unlawfully n Allen Edwards, H. Councilman, ered said John John TERM, 1887. Schmidt, Oehler, Andrew Lorenz Hisey, Stephen Nattier, and Joel H. Baker, aforesaid, Becker respectively, Joseph and there officers of said then not be- being law authorized then there have the persons ing pos- of said lists, session and certifi- custody aforesaid, cates of the of election form contrary judges States made and of the statutes of the United case dignity provided, peace of America. States “Emory B. Sellers, the District Indiana! 8.U. Attorneyfor the law this indictment whereas is, essence of of Indiana was the these State inspectors returns of the voters, take certified lists ,co them until delivered them the judges, safely keep *15 who were to ex- clerk or to the board of canvassers county the votes amine count of all county, precincts who them defendants, influenced persuaded lists, and certificates, to deliver various poll ways, up had no to take to other who tally authority papers persons and. who them, thus had opening, opportunity charge It omission is the those documents. falsifying examining, these this which was duty, upon inspectors imposed these confided to law Indiana, safely papers keeping of this their that constitutes the foundation care, proceeding. this of Indiana subject statutes provisions of the Kevised Stat- be sections found may following utes of that State: Judges. 34. the votes When 4712.
“Sec. Certificate a certifi- shall make out shall be the board of counted, judges each number votes cate, under their hands, per- stating number office; son received, designating certificate, shall be and such words; written together shall one of the lists of voters and one tally papers, selected or with one with the judges deposited inspector, the board of judges.” 37. inspectors 4715. “Sec. Board Canvassers. IN EE COY. U9 or or of election. to each township precinct, judges shall certificates, books, have poll tally whom papers for in this delivered, shall constitute a act, been provided shall canvassers, board of who canvass the cer- estimate lists, returned each member tificates, for which board; of said shall assemble at purpose court-house on the next such electioif, Thursday succeeding between the hours of ten a.m. and six o’clock p.m.”
The acts which are make the con- .supposed duct of with these returns a crimi- persons interfering nal offence are to be found in the sections of the following Eevised Statutes of the United States:
“ Sec. 5440. If or two more either to com- persons conspire mit the United any States, or defraud the United States in manner or for and one or any any purpose, more of such act effect of the con- parties do‘any object all the to such shall be liable parties spiracy, conspiracy of not less than one thousand and not penalty dollars more than ten thousand dollars, not- more imprisonment than two years.”
“ Sec. at If, election for or Dele- any Eepresentative and votes, gate Congress, any person knowingly personates or in the name vote, other whether attempts any person, or or dead, or fictitious; votes than once at the living .more same election for candidate for the same or office; votes any at a where he not be entitled to place vote; may lawfully votes without a lawful un- or does vote; having any right lawful act secure an to vote for himself, opportunity other force, reward, threat, intimidation, person; bribery, or offer thereof, voter of unlawfully prevents any qualified *16 1 1879, By 17, 4, 8, May the act of c. Stat. this section the Revised Statutes amended so as read as follows: “ persons conspire If or any two more either to commit any any United or States to defraud the States manner or for purpose, parties any object and one or more such do act to effect conspiracy parties conspiracy penalty to such to a all shall be liable dollars, imprisonment not than more thousand or to for not'more ten. years, imprisonment than or two to both line and discretion in tlie court.” OCTOBER TE$tM[, 18&7. or from
any any Territory, freely exercising or such means induces right .suffrage, by any voter to any refuse exercise such or or induces right, compels by any sucli means officer of an election in any such State or any to receive a vote from a not Territory person legally qualified ma,nner ,or entitled to or vote; interferes in offi- any any cer of such election in the of his duties; or discharge by any means or unlawful such other induces means, officer of an any election officer whose .or duty ascertain, announce or declare the result such or or any election, make give any certificate, document or evidence in relation thereto, violate or refuse to with his or law comply duty any regulating same; or receives the vote of not en- knowingly any person titled to or refuses to vote, receive the vote of en- any person titled to or vote, aids, or counsels, advises such procures any voter,' or officer to do person act made a or crime, any Hereby omit do omission which any duty made a hereby crime, or to do shall so, he attempt fine of punished by not more than five hundred or dollars, by imprisonment more than three or and shall both, the costs of years, pay the prosecution.” n indictment, which is to be charge supposed justi- fied this is that section, the defendants to inter- conspired fere with the officers of the election of their discharge did duties; unlawful means induce them to vio- late and refuse to with their to the comply duty regard of the election and that custody returns, safekeeping and induced these or so to persuaded officers, do, attempted omit their thereto. duty regard 5512, Section although mainly relating registration “ it an voters, makes offence for officer or other any who has in relation to such any duty perform registration or, or the result ascertaining, announcing declaring thereof, or in or or document certificate, giving any making evidence in relation or re- Avho thereto,” knoAvingly neglects fuses to or violates perform laAv, any duty required by any or law laAv, does act unauthorized imposed by relating affecting registration
IN EE COY. result or thereof, document or certificate, evidence in any re- - lation or if thereto, aids, counsels, any person' or procures, advises such voter, or officer to do act any person any hereby made a or to omit act crime, the omission of which any made a crime, such shall be hereby every as. punishable section.” prescribed preceding
Section 5515 makes it an for officer of an elec- any at which tion, or any Representative Delegate Congress for, voted who or withholds, conceals certificate destroys any so of record law the election required respecting any or or who or refuses Representative Delegate; neglects make and return such certificate as or who required by law; counsels, aids, or advises Voter, or procures, officer any person, act to do this or sections made a any any preceding or to omit to do crime, the omission of which is any duty of such sections made a this or crime, to do attempts so.” These statutes of the
. first a prescribing pun- for a to commit ishment an offence its conspiracy laws, federal laws made for the secu- preceded supplemented of the elections held for rity protection Representatives confer a con- authority Delegates Congress, punish interfere with that prevent security, by spiracy proceed- in the federal courts. The difficulty delicacy ings arises from the circumstance that instead position laws for the election of such members and of passing delegates from the States and Territories under the of its supervision and at times when own officers other elections are held, no to the States the for remitted such elections. providing member, that in all cases It follows where Congress State, from a that he is voted for at an elected election held under the laws of the other provide holding at the same time and under the direction of> elections place, ' at which ballots are cast for a number officers, the same great officers. The same of state and local judges, inspectors, and conduct the election for all these different clerks preside votes for members of are offices. generally put box with those cast for the various state and the same into TERM, 1887.
Opinion the Court. ballots, officers.' They generally printed municipal names, list of of one containing long paper, piece composed *18 for in the candidate Con- those of Representative including officers. and state, county municipal gress, has not advisable the Government it thought While Federal for nor elections Congressmen, to.inter provide separate the conduct of those elections laws for fere with the general has the sections above referred enacted States, passed by who to, others those for persons and punishment among votes are laws an where cast violate the election at In this have for a member of doing they adopted Congress. ,of: have that and laws provided persons is, an that where a member who them at such violate of the statutes is shall be for, provisions voted punished in and the federal of the United States by proceedings courts. condition makes
This anomalous question appli- on this to offences laws subject cability Congress for the re- under the state statutes regulation casting, somewhat but the votes counting complex; turning, of Con- States, under the Constitution power, make as secure necessary such gress provisions which a election at member of fair and honest conduct as well as the return, is elected, preservation, proper Congress thereat, whatever and, fact, of the votes cast counting fair certification of such election, is to an honest and necessary do this, cannot right Congress questioned. them its the statutes enforcing adopting counsel to be established. In sanctions, own is conceded by this brief: their say regard since Ex Clarke, “It the-decision is, parte perhaps, that has the debate under the U. S. 399, power past Congress the laws of the several States, Constitution respecting adopt and, members of mode electing Congress, resulting from that for infrac- power, right prescribe punishment This court has held than more tions of laws so adopted. that has exercised once power, this adopted created under the officers them. laws, these with and, them, „IN RE COY. Í53 for the them election of purposes representa- making its officers, has added new sanctions to tives Gongress such officers to the laws, these subjected penalties All this conceded.” sanctions. main indictment, however, objection earnestness counsel for that is, great appellants,
urged it contains no averment the intent and purpose conduct was to defendants’ affect manner the election of a member of or to influence the returns relating to that office. The in various forms, proposition put state and since there were local officers also voted for many the election and in those it is at question precincts, with the consistent indictment that the actions of the conspira- tors were directed to the election of those only persons, for the federal office of a congressional representa- tive, the indictment is for that reason insufficient. *19 The is that the charge unlawfully conspirators felo- induced the election omit officers to their
niously perform in this which is in to be conceded duty respect, expres- general sive of an evil intent. But counsel more demand something than this evil intent in with the lists, general tampering poll certificates, it denied that is not tally papers although accused, the election officers object parties inducing their,- violate from a or that intent, criminal duty, proceeded it was done for the the returns contained purpose affecting that were them or to the withheld, exposing of mutilation and said, however, alteration. It is that danger intent is not since the evil shown to have been specifically returns of the aimed at the vote for the statutes congressmen, can of the United States have no force so .far as the infliction is concerned; and it is asserted that any penalty Congress had no where no intent power provide any punishment election is averred. affecting congressional It would be a where establish, that, very singular principle a man was with caused homicide, charged by maliciously a croAvd into some Avith shooting killing purpose Avhom or he bore with no intent malice, but injure against kill he the individual struck the shot, Avho Avas actually
vol. cxxvn —48 TERM, n ts-é' because he did not intend to kill held excused that should be him. and had no malice against particular person, of this case is close. example present The analogy did accused desire intend to interfere with The persons did those returns, the election re- purpose falsify at who were then least, as to voted turns, persons, som.e It their it as candidates. is on behalf because |or argued in the intended to not averred indictment falsify vote, the election returns congressional regard held bad. It to affect returns, those particular intent had relation to the ac- (cid:127)also insisted that the felonious tion of the officersto omit the care- keeping inducing the records sheets, books although fully also suffer of the votes for along congressman might possibly who be affected with a number of other might byJihat persons not in the minds of the con- because there was omission, yet to influence the intent or design congres- specific spirators liable under this are not to be held sional statute. election, they acts of is to to be attained object thes§. and the opportunity, tampering guard against danger, as well as direct inten- returns, with the election of that the vote for members tional frauds body. the votes whenever the evidences law. is violated concerning hands for that subjected cast exposed purpose individuals to the or unauthorized opportu- improper persons or to the of such falsification, for their danger changes nity whether do affect they actually forgeries may of thus and whether not, so or party guilty purpose them them from their custody proper exposing wresting this result. to such danger might accomplish *20 criminal in when an act be instances may There many . a criminal intent. Gross without there its character being killed, or while which carelessness, injured person may.be or from murder to reduce the offence manslaughter, it may relieve the the does not guilty wholly modify penalty, na- both Governments, of it from criminal responsibility.- make for tional and laws state, even protec- municipal, from acci- tion such articles, glycerine, against powder IN RE COY. Opinion the Court. of where from no intention exists to negligence, dents resulting If violate these laws become persons an they cause injury. liable, because for strict to the necessity prescribed, penalty in substances re- and caution regard dangerous care thereto, from that carelessness regard damage quires be there should result, punished, notwithstanding may might criminal or of felonious intent. an absence any of is one this character. Crimes before us The case eminently serious have so numerous and so that the ballot become of all bodies has been turned with attention legislative them, and to anxious solicitude of means preventing of the re- in elections accuracy object purity securing acts turns which their result is ascertained. The Con- now under consideration are of the State Indiana gress of this class. The manifest both legis- systems purpose a,s remove ballot-box as the certificates well lation ca,st from all falsifica- votes possible opportunity mere that the care- and to tion, or destruction; say forgery, less the want intention on omission, persons of an part” the violation have who are acted feloniously alleged, not intend to did vio- those excuses them because laws, for at such their as to voted an late all the persons provisions to affect have intended although might some of them, .manifestly contrary result regards sound and is not common sense supported authority. that the act of be added Congress It may language does offences, these clearly regard describing require, these acts omission to some of failure perform there, officers, duties should be imposed upon an intention give opportunity alleged proved records of the votes cast. tampering improper It is insisted counsel for the also strenuously appellants no in their offence under act of argument stated, however, recited in We have the indictment. already what indictment extracts from those given charges, on acts and the statutes Indiana While we subject. do not think it which has to elaborate necessary argument, been considered court in several below, fully opin- *21 TERM, 1887.
Opinion of the Court. of error habeas ions on writs «for applications corpus we do not doubt that the tribunals, inferior indictment various forth a to this sets induce by conspiracy parties appeal election in to omit Indianapolis inspectors discharge and to fail to of their duty safely keep guard and certificates committed to their lists, care for tally papers at which each Nor do we doubt the precincts they presided. that the statute of such a those imposed duty upon Indiana induced to were violate by inspectors, they persua- sion and influence of the to this parties conspiracy.
We are the less these controversies, inclined enter into a narrow construction of Indiana and of the statutes acts of because we think were they questions prop- trial before District Court on the erly prisoners. were of which that court had They questions jurisdiction which it was its decided that court to decide. When a writ error, were review here nor subject its sense proper’ just questions affecting juris- It diction. would be as well to con- say every question an indictment and sufficiency validity cerning evidence was a matter of it, necessary support jurisdiction, if authorized an error took a writ interference, place, by That this for its correction. cannot be done of habeas corpus held this court. been repeatedly on the is that of Ex case Tobias parte subject leading 193, in which the was delivered 3 Pet. Watkins, opinion Watkins was committed to Marshall. Chief Justice jail virtue of of Columbia the Cir the District judgment States for that of the United District. An cuit Court appli for a writ of habeas made on his behalf corpus cation the indictment on which was con he upon ground did not show and that it court, victed any jurisdiction could no offence for which he therein. punished charged Justice, eminent Chief after remarking general that a commitment court of a proposition judgment is a sufficient writ habeas answer to a jurisdiction competent intended to effect his said: The corpus discharge, judgment Sscord whose conclusive of a court of is filial is as jurisdiction
IN RE COY.- . on all the world as the of this court would be. It judgment as conclusive on this court as it on other *22 is is courts. It puts fact, an end to it. The inquiry concerning by deciding counsel for the admit the of these prisoner application princi to a case in which the a indictment crime ples alleges cogni in zable the court which the Was but judgment pronounced, their a case which the indictment they deny application an offence not criminally charges punishable according with law of the land. But what can this court look propriety ? into the indictment We have no to examine the power pro on a writ. of and would be error, if, ceedings strange under color of a writ to liberate an individual from unlawful im we could reverse a substantially prisonment, judgment has the law our control. An placed beyond imprisonment a cannot under be unless unlawful, judgment judgment be an absolute and it is not a if the court- nullity; has nullity it should be. jurisdiction subject, general although erroneous. The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia is record, a court of over criminal having general jurisdiction An cases. offence court is cognizable any cognizable offence, that court. If the that court law, punishable by to inflict the competent such punishment. judgment a tribunal has all the which the obligation judgment any tribunal can have. To determine whether the dffence charged in the indictment be isf legally punishable nop, among most of its unquestionable decision powers dutiesl of this is the exercise of question whether the jurisdiction be for or Thu judgment is' against prisoner. judgment in the one case and in the equally binding other, must in full remain force unless reversed a regularly by superior court it.” capable 202, 203. reversing pp.
It' be said that this is too may broad language asserting because court that, must every its own pass upon jurisdiction, such decision is itself the exercise of a which be- jurisdiction it, cannot, therefore, be other longs questioned any But we do not so court. understand the meaning It' was not court. intended to that because a certainly say court tries a federal common law prisoner ordinary TERM,
Opinion Court. as assault and with offence, no burglary, battery, larceny, averment or the United States, proof any connection with a statute of the him he cannot be released punishes imprisonment, court which tried him habeas because the had.assumed corpus jurisdiction. all
In when cases, raised, question jurisdiction to be whether the is, decided court jurisdiction point of that class of If the statute has invested the court offences. which tried well jurisdiction punish prisoner class of of its bonds or offences, defined forgery perjury what courts, its its as to acts under necessary judgment the crime not reviewable on these statutes constitute of habeas writ corpus. are valid when laws of
And, only *23 of the the that within constitutional validity power body, statute under which a held be custody may prisoner of habeas into under a writ corpus affecting inquired which ordered his the court imprisonment. jurisdiction their want on the face of record" And if of power appears in the his whether indictment or condemnation, elsewhere, which to issue the writ is bound the court authority 100 U. S. Siebold, him. Ex release parte main while answer the we have So, argument attempted that had no counsel, punish power prisoners’ to affect the election of intended a an act not specifically act done with a was felo- member though it has not it had such exercised intent, and that if power nious under laid it down we not it, necessary, principle thought into the Watkins, to sufficiency in Ex parte inquire details of the offence as minute more charged allegation it not here to consider as on indictment. We are a in the District Court trial; but, before demurrer finding we offences, of this class of liad a proceed jurisdiction general no on that subject. further inquiries Parks, 23, was 18, this
In Ex 93 U. S. very parte question case of authorities. The Watkins reviewed all the ably upon announced that it reaffirmed, was proposition general n '759 RE IN COY. from a review of the cases that “where 'the was apparent a conviction the writ in execution upon ought prisoner once if should at be re- issued, issued, or, to be prisoner of the offence, if the court below had manded, jurisdiction . . conferred it. . The no act upon did beyond powers had both Court person, District- plenary jurisdiction, about it. To review the the cause, tiie everything' place, of habeas writ that court means of a corpus decision error, writ into a mere writ of be to convert would which has never been conferred to assume appellate power this court.” 110 U. S. was Ex 651, the Yarbrough, parte subject In The court reiterated the doctrine examined very fully. again of habeas cannot be into a writ converted corpus the writ sen-, court which passing error judgment “ If that court The court there said: be reviewed. can tence and of the' offence for which he' of the party had jurisdiction n its in the sentence- has not exceeded powers tried, no further. This this court can it inquire which pronounced, made before us on the the argument disposes principle under which thé of the indictments prisoners insufficiency the indictment sets forth tried. Whether case this statute describes terms the offence comprehensive is in' for which it forbids, prescribes punishment, be' de which must law, necessarily ease question every and is there court which the case originates, cided by on the its Its decision con within jurisdiction. clearly fore of the statute the indictment may provisions formity law made a court but if so is an error-of erroneous, *24 which could be corrected on a its within jurisdiction, acting but cannot allowed, if such writ was be' of error writ to an habeas corpus of limited into on a writ inquiry, looked that court.” on the of part the existence jurisdiction into and Ex Ex Tobias Watkins parte parte 654. 653, Citing pp. Parks, supra. ex- a further than better close cannot
We this opinion in Ex 666: court Yarbrough, p. of the parte that -from tract like where ours, power political government, aIn republican TERM, J; Field, Opinion: Dissenting entire reposed representatives body people, short, chosen at elections, intervals by popular temptations to control these elections violence and is a by corruption constant source of Such has been all danger. history and, ours has been free from republics, though, comparatively both these evils in the no lover of his can shut past, country his to the fear of future from both sources.” eyes danger
The the Circuit the writ Court, denying judgment of habeas corpus, affirmed. Mr. Justice Field dissenting. were indicted in the District petitioners appellants of the United States for the District of Indiana for an
Court to commit the United alleged conspiracy and were arid a fine and convicted sentenced to be pay The fine of Bernhamer was one thousand dollars, imprisoned.- was for one the fine of and his was year; Coy imprisonment hundred and his was one dollars, imprisonment eighteen the accused months. offence charged conspired Perkins induce the an election with one held inspectors November, at which a Indiana, 1886, Representative was voted to omit them for, imposed upon lists' the laws of keep safely and the certificates of the voters, tally papers, judges, until were delivered the clerk county, whom canvassers, the votes were to or to its board and, to effect the con- counted; examined object deliver those persuaded inspectors spiracy, to take had of them. who . no‘-authority charge persons whether the we can Circuit only On inquire .this appeal and I writ; admit, to issue erred Court refusing sole, it, question issuing propriety determining was whether the District could court consider ..Court and con indicted, tried, in which the Indiana, appellants ac the offence and parties had victed, jurisdiction ' As was said and to render cused, pronounced. .judgment “The 371, S. 100 U. 375: only ground Siebold, in Ex parte *25 IN RE COY. 761 Meld, Opinion: Dissenting J. without some statute court, this or court, special
on on to a will release habeas it, corpus prisoner authorizing give is the sentence of another want of court, under conviction and cause, in such court over some jurisdiction But its void.” that this' other matter rendering proceedings can exercise habeas court and the Circuit Court jurisdiction by infe- where it is the action an in cases alleged corpus, a citizen of the States has been rior tribunal unlawfully established; is well of his liberty, personal deprived court, under whose into the record inferior can look to ascer- are restrained their liberty, parties judgment it had to hold them, whether try tain jurisdiction examination If it render judgment. appear upon further had considera- the inferior court jurisdiction, cannot the case is ended. writ habeas corpus tion of so as to of a writ of error, made to take the authorize place inferior errors of the court into an examination any alleged if it had no over the its conclusion. But jurisdiction reaching with which or to of the offence charged, parties and this court can in- 'the Circuit Court render judgment, laid The broad doctrine down in them. terfere discharge that where no revision a Watkins, Pet. 193, Ex parte a court in a criminal case is court of the judgment higher into its court will not another authorized, jurisdiction inquire decisions. has been modified habeas corpus, subsequent was made before the case no objection As present Dis- or is made Court, here, jurisdiction Circuit or to accused, of Indiana over trict Court persons if the offence render pronounced, charged judgment could take the sole of which that court one cognizance, ques- the indictment before us is whether tion charges thus cognizable. Clarke, and Ex
In Ex Siebold parte reported parte had the it was held that under 371, 399, power U. S. Congress the laws of States the Constitution adopt respecting-the where at such election a election of officers be voted it could for, is to member of Congress for violation of such laws. This was impose punishment TERM, 1887.- (cid:127)762.- ,T. Field, Opinion: Dissenting held the face that was objection competent a state officer for manner in which he punish *26 him duties the laws of the by discharged imposed upon nor to its State; make exercise of punitive power depend But court States. at the same legislation time held that the of the laws of the by adoption Congress State extended so far as the election concerned only Bepresen tatives Its own If, was: its con Congress. language a State fit elect venience, sees state and at officers county time, the same and in election of conjunction repre will sentatives, be Congress thereby right deprived to make in reference to the latter.- "We do not regulations mean to however, that for acts of of election, officers say, any exclusive or reference to the election of state having county officers, will ; be amenable to Federal nor do jurisdiction we understand that the enactments of now under Congress consideration have such acts.” S. U. application n It would therefore, essential in seem, an indictment pre- sented a United States for an court, offence cognizable by that court under these state that it laws, should aver that the violation of them was intended to affect the election of a mem- ber of How of election or other officers Congress. inspectors of a State elections, conduct the so far as may those elections 'to officers, relate state and -what incur in liability they may such cases for the omission duties them imposed upon laws, are matters within state entirely cognizance state tribunals. A violation the state laws as to the elec- tion of to fill state officescannot be made the persons subject a federal court, nor, a punishment by course, conspiracy to induce state officers to violate those laws. The judicial States does not extend a case of that power United kind. The Constitution It defines limits that power. declares that the shall extend cases in law power equity under the laws arising Constitution, States, and treaties made under their to cases authority; affecting other ambassadors, ministers, to cases consuls; public and maritime various contro- admiralty jurisdiction,
IN RE COY. Field, Dissenting Opinion: J. a the United States or State be
versies to which may party, or citizens of same States, between citizens of different States, lands under different be- State claiming grants of a State and tween citizens any foreign citizens thus Whilst the defined limited subjects. judicial power (cid:127) arise the Constitu to new cases as under may applied States, and laws the United cannot be extended tion in that so as to include cases not enumerated instru- as has held this court. ment, been often in this case induce indictment charges conspiracy to. officers under the laws of Indiana certain election appointed the crime to commit a crime the United being im- omission them to certain duties alleged perform But it laws of elections. posed respecting State no was to contains allegation alleged conspiracy *27 which, of a as said affect the election member of Congress; me to be to the offence with- -above, to essential appears bring If was to court. jurisdiction conspiracy the election of a state no offence was committed officer, affect in it the District States. If Court cognizable than of a had other to affect election member any object it was a matter for the cognizance exclusively state courts. several in a States, them, In majority probably are elected state, officers, numerous city, village, county, in time with accord- the same at representatives Congress; decision a to the officers to the present persuade conspiracy ing to omit them under the election any duty imposed upon to affect the elec- laws though merely designed inferior is an tion magistrate against village, States, Thus, the Federal courts. the United punishable even the laws of the State matters of local obedience if a member of at same offices, is voted for be enforced the courts of the United may by whose laws instead of tribunals of the State proper I been violated. am not able to to a doctrine have assent this courts result, leads to the Federal gives power in an with the officials intermeddle action of state TERM, 'OCTOBER 1887. \ . .
Syllabus. for member local offices whenever a have Congress may . I been voted for at the time. what is same agree the court as to the in a temptations existing republican gov- where ernment, political power reposed representatives chosen entire at short intervals body people, those violence and elections, control elections popular But I do not fact reason corruption. perceive any of fraud committed or at state why punishment designed elections state officers should be transferred the Federal for. courts. The much States are as interested in guarding at such frauds and in elections, their as it maintaining purity, for the to be. do not possible general government They their the aid of matters .require protection more than in domestic other affairs. general government, any As on a former invested occasion, “they .observed the sole domestic affairs power régulate highest moment to the of their prosperity happiness people, and descent of transfer, affecting acquisition, enjoyment, relation the education of chil- property;, marriage and if such dren; momentous and vital concerns may intrusted I think them, do not wisely safely need if be felt apprehension elections in supervision t-heir States should also be left them,” I respective where, may add, properly belongs.
I am of that the writ of habeas should opinion have corpus been issued this case the Circuit and that Court, its order denying petition should, therefore, be appellants reversed.
CRAIG v. LEITENSDORFER. ORIGINAL MOTION IN A ADJUDGED IN THIS COURT CAUSE AT THE
PRESENT TERM. 1.No. Submitted 23, May 14, April 1888. Decided power, duty, attachment, This court and it is to issue its writs against persons court, costs here who intervene this court leave of