New Orleans Republican. [volume], March 14, 1874, Image 1

About New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878

Image provided by: Louisiana State University; Baton Rouge, LA

                
SINGLE COPIES: FIVE 0ENT8,
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA*
TERMS: $12 00 PER ANNUM,
VOLUME VII-NO. 288.
KBW ORLEANS, SATURDAY, MARCH 14 1874.
WHOLE NUMBER 2129.
TSS GRANT PARISH PRISONERS
Yrufl iff the United States Oirenit €onft
illjGi WOODS' CHARGE—WAHINfi fOR
THE VERDICT.
seventeenth day's proceeding m the
$9ial ol Vf. ,1. Uruikshank and others,
^barged with oonsyiracy and tnurde* ir*
Grant parish last April, opened in the
(J$ited States Circuit Court yesterday by
Wudge \Yoods delivering his "charge ts the
jury. We publish that document entire,
Jtaeepting it as w page ia the history «f
I#nisiana.
J. K. Beckwith, t/oit«4 State* •tterney,
t*r the prosecution.
K II. Marr, W. It. Whitakes, E. 3. Ellis,
|f. Ryan, aud — Bryan, for the defense.
fhe United States vs. William J. Cruifc
ahank and others.—Judge Wood* shargeA
|tu> jury as follows:
The indictment in this case is presented
jointly against ninety-eight persons. Only
nine of them have been arrested and
ferought to the bar ot the court, aud are
aow on trial. These are William Crpik
»hank, John P. Hadnot, William B. Irwin,
f>enis Lemoine, Osoar Givens, Thomas
Hickman, Alfred Bewis, Clemen* Penrjpnd
Pruilhomme lemoine.
The indictment is bas#d opot» the alleged
Violation by the prisoners at the bar
und the other persons indicted sit the
fixtli section of the act of Congress
approved May Hi, 1870, entitled "Au act to
•nlorce the right of citizen* of the United
States to vote in the several Spates ol this
Union, and lor otlie# purposes" <16 Staf.,
Ml.) . .
The section reads as follows? ""That it
ftpo or more persons shall band or conspire
together, or go iu disguise upon the public
highway, or upon the premises ot another,
With intent to violate any provision of this
Act, or to injure, oppress, threaten or in
timidate any citizen, with intent to prevent
«r hinder his free exercise and enjoyment
pf any right or privilege granted or secured
to him by the constitution or laws 1 of the
United States, or because of his having ex
ercised the same, such person Bhall be held
guilty of felony, and on conviction thoreof
shall bo fined or imprisoned, or both, at the
discretion of the court," etc.
The next section of the same act declares:
•That if in the act of violating any pro
vision in either of the two preceding sec
tions, any other felony, crime or mis
demeanor shall bo committed, the of
fender, on oonviction of the violation of said
sections shall be punished forlbe same with
Much punishments as are attached to the
paid felonies, crimes amt misdemeanor* by
the laws of the State in which the pffense
jnay be committed." , ,
This statute is the Taw of the land, and
St is your duty and mine iif a proper case to
enforce. Its purpose is the protection ot
All citizens of the United States ot every
class aud condition, in the exercis'T and ei>
foyment of their lawful and constitutional
tights. Its operation is equal. Its prohi
bitions are directed to all persons; its pen
alties fall upon all ©dernier# against Its
Jirovisions of s-'very riure, condition and
■party. No mail who takes care not to in
vade the constitutional or lawful rights of
pother can bo touched by it, and it pro
tects alike the rights of all. It applies to
All parts of our country, and its provisions
bxtend to every State anti Territory in the
tin ion,
ft is a Just amt! wholesome pot. designed
to promote peac© and public order, to pro 1 "
tect every citizen, whether lolly # or lowly,
tich or poor, learned or ignorant, m the tree
exercise ami enjoyment of all the privileges
vud immunities which are granted or so
#ured to him by the constitution and laws
<>f his country# AIT classes of citizens,
whether whito of black, without regard to
Vaoo or previous condition, are interested in
Its enforcement. .
The offense charged is hot tt political
offense, as that term is generally and prop'
prly understood. This is simply a prosecu
tion against the uccused iof an alleged in.
vasion of the lawful aud constitutional rights
of others and you are tt* pass upon if, and
try it just as youw.uld an pccusationof
pnv other felony. .
You will tboreforo tiisniipfl tintirelv lrotn
your minds the idea,,) such an idea has
found lodgment there, that the proi-ecution
is iu the interest of any political party or
faction. It is in the interest of the wlmlo
people-,it is iu the interest of peace, public
security, and of public older. It is true
• that the persons who seem to have suflered
from the alleged violation in this iustance
*>f law have belonged to the colored race.
But it may sometime become my duty and
the duty of some of you to try, under the
provisions of this act, men of African
descent for invading the rights of white
Vitizens. It is your duty and mine to ad
minister the law without regard to persons,
and to do equal justice to all classes of citi
zens. Come, then, to the consideration of
this case with minds free from prejudice
pud determined to render a just anil true
verdict, according to the law und tho
evidence.
Throughout you? investigations there are
two humane maxims of the criminal law
that you should bear in mind. These are:
first, that the prisoners at tho bar are pre
sumed in Jaw to bo iuuoceut until their
guilt is shown; and second, that no man
should bo convicted ol a criminal offense
fcntil his guilt is established beyond reason
able doubt. The first rule puts the burden
*f proof upon the government; the accused
ll nut called upon to offer evidence toex
cnlpate himself until the government has
ftnade out, by proof, a pruna laoi# case
against him. Until that is done, he
is to be considered an innocent man.
The second rnle means that the guilt
pf the accused must tie made so
•tear that » reasonable man would not
hesitate to act upon the proof of guilt;
♦hat the evidenoe should be so strong as to
he inconsistent with the innocence of the ac
cused; so strong that it can beexplainedon
•o reasonable hypothesis but that ot guilt,
V> the accused.
The prisoners at the bar are brought to
trial upon an indictment containing thirty
$ wo counts.
The first count charges that the ninety
eight persons therein uaiued, including the
bine prisoners at the bar, on the thirteenth
pf April, 1873, at Grunt parish, in the dis
trict of Louisiana, unlawlully and feloni
ously did band together with the unlawlul
and felonious intent and purpose one Levi
Kelson and one Alexander Tillman, said
Helson and Tillman being citizens of the
United States and of African descent, un
lawfully and feloniously to injure, oppress
threaten and intimidate, with the unlawful
pud felonious intent thereby the said Nel
son and Tillman respectively to hinder and
prevent in tho tree exercise and enjoyment
if the right to peaceably assemble to
gether with each other and other
Citizens of the United States tor a
peaceable and lawful purpose, the
same being a light granted and secured to
Jho said Nelson and Tillman, in eeuinion
Zvith all other good citizens of the United
States, by the constitution aud lawspf t]ie
United States.
The next seven counts all charge a like
landing together, and only differ lrom the
first count and from each other in the ulti
mate intent with which tho banding to
gether is alleged to have been done.
The second count charges a banding to
gether of the indicted parties with the in
tent to injure, oppress, threaten and intimi
date Nelson and Tillman with the purpose
to hinder and prevent them in the tree ex
ercise and enjoyment of their constitu
tional right to bear arms for a lawful pur
pose.
The third count charges a banding to
gether with the intent to injure, oppress,
•to., Nelson and Tillman with the purpose
to deprive them respectively of their live*
and liberty of person without duo process
H law.
Tho frarth eount charges on intent to 1»
jare, oppress, etc., with the purpose to poo
vent and hinder Nelsou and Tillman in the
free exercise and enjoyment of the right ta
the full aud eqnal benefit of ait laws and
proceedings enacted by the United States
and the State of Louisiana for the security
of their persons and property at that time
enjoyed within the State ot Louisiana by
while citizens of the State.
The fifth eouut charges the intent to i»
jufe, oppress, etc , with the purpose topre- !
vent and hinder Nelson and Tillman, on !
account of Their African descent, in tho
enjoyment ot their constitutional and lawful
rights, privileges, immunities and protection. ,
granted and scoured to them as citizen# of
the United States and State o# Louisiana.
The sixth count charges the intent to it»- !
jufts o;ipress,%lc . with the purpose to pre
vent and hinder Nelson and Tillman iu the
free exercise oT their respective right to
vote at any election to be thereafter hy law
held in the State ot Louisiana or in tho par
ish of Grain, said Nelson und Tillmafa being
lawful voters.
The seventh count Chafgee the intent to
injure and oppress, etc., wi'h the purpose to
put Nelacn and Tillman, severally, in great
fear of bodily harm, because they, having a
lawful and «onslitutionaf right so to do,
had voted at an election held on the fourth
day of November, 1872, and at divers other
election* before that time held by the pee
pie of the State of Louisiana.
The eighth count charges aa futetit Toin
juro and oppress, etc . Nelson and Tillman
with the purpose ta hinder and prevent
them m the enjoyment «f every, each, all
and singular, the several rights and privil
eges granted and aeenred to them by tho
constitution and laws of tho Uuited States
of America.
The next eight counts of the indictment,
tiuiuben-d from Bin© t* sixteen inclusive,
arc respectively identical with the first
eight counts* With this single difference:
Instead ot charging that the indicted per
sons banded together, it it charged that
they did combine, conspire and contederat*
together with the several intent* and pur
poses laid respectively in the first tight
counts.
The eight 'count, numbered From seven
teen to twenty-four inclusive, are identical
with the first eight count* respectively, ex
cept that to each of these counts is added
the averment that the indicted persons,
while no feloniously bahded together, aud
in the act of committing the felony, in these
counts charged did commit the crime of
willful aud malicious murder upon the per
son of said Alexander Tillman,
The last eightoouut* are identical with
the eight first named, except that they
charge a combining aad conspiring together
instead of a bnndiug together. And toeach ot
these last eight counts is also added a charge
of willful and malicious murder upon the
person of said Alexander Tillman,
The reading of the law of Congress and
of the iudictmeu*. based upon it shows you
that the gist of the offenses charged •» the
intent w ith which the criminal act# are al
leged to have been done, _ ....
There can b# nocouvioftoh under tins in
dictment unless three things are shown: _
1. There must be a banding or conspiring
together of two or more of tho accused per
sou#named in the indictment.
« This banding or conspiring must bo
With the intent ta injure, oppress, threaten
of intimidate Lsv* Nelson sir Alexander
Tillman.
3. This intention to injure, oppress,
threaten or intimidat? must be thereby
to carry out one of the purposes and intents
epecified in the several counts of tb© indict
ment; as, for instance, asetated in the first
count, the purpose t« hinder and prevent
Nelson and Tillman in the right peacably
to assemble, or a# stated in the third eount,
the purpose to deprive Nelson and Tillman
of their lives and liberty of person withuut
due process of law.
Unless these three points are established
by the evidence, m* matlef haw criminal
tho conduct of the defendant# may have
been, they are not guilty under this indict
ment. Unles* the intent is proved »*
laid down, this court lias no Jurisdiction of
the case, for it is tho unlawtul Intent with
which the acts charged are done that give*
the court jurisdiction. Tim accused may
be tried on another indictment, in wuw
other court, but they can not be convicted
under this indictment in this court without
proof ol tho alleged intent.
In passing npon any controverted cxsc
it save# tabor and trouble and tend# to
clearness and precision of judgment
to ascertain what points aro not disputed
and what are iu issue. In tho case on trial
there are many facts not in cont roversy. (
proceed testate some of them, in the pres
ence and hearing of counsel on both sides,
and if I state as a conceded lact any matter
that is disputed, they can correct me.
Abont the twenty-filth of March, 1873,
one Shaw claimed to be sheriff, and one
Register judge, of the parish of Grant, Be
loro that time Columbus C. Nash and
Alphonse Cazabar, both of whom are ac
cused by the indictment in this case, bad
claimed t# be, tho former sheriff, and the
latter judge of the same parish, holding, as
it seems, commissions signed by Governor
IF. C. YVarmoth, and they ban exercised
the duties of their respective offices. In the
month of March, FS73. application had been
made to Governor William P. Kellogg, by
the friends of Nash and Cazabat, for their
appointment to the offices of sheriff and
parish judge respectively, which appoint
ment Governor Kellogg refused to make,
and justeadcommissioned Shaw nnil Regis
ter.
On or about the twenty-fifth of March,
Register, the judge. Shaw, the sheriff,
aud other parish officers commissioned
by Governor Kellogg made an entry into
the courthouse of the parish, which they
found locked, by way of the window. They
tlias obtained and held possession of the
courthouse. On the night of Monday, the
thirty-first of March, Register. Shaw and
others sympathizing with them, hearing
rumors of an armed invasion of the town
for the purpose a>f retaking the couthous©,
counseled together, and Shaw, as sheriff,
deputized from fifteen tis aighteen men,
mostly colored, ta assist, as hi* posse,
in keeping possession of the courthouse,
and to preserve this peace. These
persons so deputised were served with
written appointments signed by Shaw as
sheriff. On tho next day, Tuesday, April 1,
a company of mounted white men, beaded
by James Yf. Hadnot, since deceased, and
numbering from nine to fifteen, a part, if
not all of them, armed with guns, came
into the town of Uolfax, and on the «ame
day one or tw© other small armed squads
also came into town. f)a this day tu* col
lision occurred between the men deputized
by Shaw and the m«» who same with Had*
not and others.
On Wednesday, th* second of April, a
small hotly of wfiite men, mounted and
atraed, approached Colfax and were fuct a
short distance from the town by a body of
armed men, most of them colored. Shot*
were exchanged between these two bodies
of men. No vine w its Lurt, aud the white
men rode off.
These proceeding* alattnea the colored
people, and many came to Colfax for refuge#
and with them a uumbor ot women and
children. Many, perhaps a majority of the
men who collected in tho towu, came armed.
On Saturday, April 5. a band of aimed
white men, fifteen in number, as claimed to
be sliowu by the prosecution, and three in
number, as indicated by an item ot evidence
introduced by the defense, approached the
house of one Jesse McKinney, a colored
man, throe miles from Collax, on the Darrow,
and found him engaged iu matin* a tenoe
around his lot. One ot the band of white
men fired upon him, shot him through the
head and killed him. His wife, assisted by
another woman, got his body into a wagon
and carried it to the house of her stepfather,
and there left it and took refuge at the Mire
bean plantation. No evidence in the case
explains the motive which led to this deed.
This homicide increased the alarm of the
colored people who flocked into Colfax.
Report* were circulated through the parish
of threats made by the oolored people
against the white*. Most of the white fitmi
lie* in or near Colfax, and many in more
distant part* of tho pamh, removed from
their horn— aad sought piaoe* of safety
On Koaday, April 7, tho pariah o *n rt wa*
opened and adjourned by Register as judge
and Shaw ah sheriff. After this the alarm
seemed somewhat t# subside, and many of
the oolored people left Colfax and returned ,
to their homes. (
An armed body of colored meb, beweves,
atill held possession of Colfax and the court
house. and obstructed ingress to the town
and courthouse, and the whites maintained ,
some sort of aa armed organization outside. |
Ou Saturday, th» twelfth of April, tho
colored men at Colfax threw tip a small
earthwork iu front ff and in the vicinity
«f the courthouse. Ac this time aud the
next morning the number of colored men
iu the town i* furiously estimated at from
JOSF to 300, more than half «>f whom were
armed with guns. ♦ >n the morning ot lias-,
ter Sunday. April 13, a body of mounted
and armed white men, variously estimated
at from 150 to 700, approached Colfax from
aiiotc. When in the vicinity they asked
for a conference With the colored people,
which was granted and took place—Coluui
bus C. Nash speaking for the white«men,
and Levin Allen,» celered man, for hi»
side. Nash demanded that the colored
men should give up their arms and yield
possession of the courthouse. This demand
wan not acceded to by the colored men,
and thirty minute# were given them to
remove their women and children. The
oolored tuea took refuge behind their
earthwork Bear the courthouse, and
at about ten, eleven or twelve o'clock,
a# varionsly stated by the witnesses,
the tiring liegan. The white men had a
small piece of artillery mounted on wheels,
which, with their small arm#, wim used
against the colored men. who responded
with their shotguns and Enfield rifle*; oi
the latter they bad about a dozen. A
change in the position of their gut» made by
the white men gave fhem an enfilading fire
on tho black#, which demoralized them, and
their line broke. A portion of them, leav
ing their arms, fled down the Rod river iu
the direction of a atrip of woods, at
Uuny's Point, and were followed
by inonnted and armed whites, bv
whom many of them were overtaken
aud shot to death. The* others, sixty or
seventy in number, took refuge la the
courthouse. This was surrounded by the
white men and the small gun was brought
t* bear upon it, one ot its ahots going in
one of »he windows and out of the other. A
rambling fire of small arms was kept up by
the whites upon the Windows of the court
house, which was occasionally responded to
by the blacks inside, without damage, how
ever. t» cither party. The whites,
after keeping tip lor a short time
an unavailing fire upon the court
house, by approaching it upon a side
which had no openipg# for window# or
doors,set tire to the building by a torch
applied to the roof. Tho roof was eooniu
dames, and Ihe occupants of the building
became alarmed. One held out the leaf of
it book and the other tore off l is shirt, sleeve
and hung it upon » stick as * sigh ofcapitu
1 at ion, and shouted that they surrendered.
They were ordered to drop their arm*. At
this point there is » matter of dispute be
tween tho prosecution and defense. James
U. Hadnot and one Hkrri.s «m tho
part «>f the whites, approached the
courthouse and, o# claimed by the de
fense, had * whir© flag niion a polo. As they
came near the door they felt, both mortally
wounded. Tho defeost* insists that while
bearing the white fl>g they Wer# shot
trom tho courthouse. The prosecution and
its witnesse# say that when Hadnot Was
approaching, the blacks, having thrown
down their arm*, started to come out from
the burning eourthouss and worn met by u
volley of shots from the whites, which, be
sides. killing many of fiia colored men,
struck down Hadnot and Harris. However,
«liia may be, X number of unarmed blacks
who camo cut from the courthouse were
shot dead, and other# were wounded.
Among the killed was Alexander Tillman,
cue ot the colored tnen named ia the
indictment. Most of those who wer# pot
killed were taken prisoners. Fifteen or
sixteen of the blacks had lifted the boards
alnl taken refuge under the floor of tho
courthouse. They were all captured. About
tlurty-seven tnen were taken prisoners.
The cumber l# not definitely fixed. They
were kept under gpard until dark. They
were then led out two by two aud shot.
Most of the tnen were shot to death. A few
wen* wounded, not mortally, and by pre
tending to be dead, were afterward tinting
the eight able to make their escape.
Among them wa# the Levi Ncisoa named iu
the indictment.
'The dead bodies of the negroes killed in
this affair wore lefiunburieii until Tuesday,
April 15, wheat-bey were buried by a deputy
marshal and an officer of the militia from
New Orleans. These persona found fifty
nine dead bodies. They showed pistol shot
wounds, tho great majority in the head and
must «f thru* in the back ®f the head. Iu
addition t<* tho fifty-nine dead bodies found,
some charred remain# of dead bodies were
discovered near tho courthouse. -S:x dead
bodies wort* found under a warehouse, all
shot in the bead, but ope or two which were
shot lu the breast.
The only whit© to'-n Tnjureu from tie ho
ginning of these troubles to their close were
Hadnot end Harris. The courthouse and
its contents wer© entirely consumed.
There is no evidenoe that any one in toe
crowd of white# boro any lawful warrant
for the arrest of any of the blacks. There
is tio evidence that either Nash orUazabat
after the affair ever demanded their office#,
to which they bad set up claim, but Regis
ter continued f» act as pat LI* judge, and
Shaw a# iheriff.
These are fact# in thi* ©as© a# I under
stand them ta bs admitted.
If these facts are conceded, or if yotl find
them upon Ihe evidence to bo truo, your
range of inquiry will be much narrowed.
Now turn your attention to the jnunt*
already stated necessary to b© prowl* to
establish thi# indictment.
First, the prosecution mnst #bow n band
ing ©r conspiring together of twoor more.
Of course unless two are shown to tie
guilty there can be no conviction; but if
the proof shows that one of more of the
prisoners on trial batided or eonspried with
one or more of the other parties included in
the iuiiictment, and not on trial, oc with
one or more of the other# on trial, that
would be sufficient proof of conspiracy.
To conspire is for two or more persons to
agree together to do an unlawful act. Tho
evidence in proof of a conspiracy will gen_
orally, from the nature of the east*, be cir
cumstantial. Though the common design is
thocssefice of the oharge, it is not neoessary
to prove that the defendant#came together
auu actually agreed, in terms, to fiave that
design and tn pursue it by common meins.
If it be proved that th© prisoners pursued,
by th#tr acts the same titiject. olten by the
same means, one performing «>n#parl aud
another another part of tbe same.se* as to
complete it, with a vie* to tin* attainment
of the same object, ynu will be justified in
tbe conclusion that they wejre tuga^edina
conspiracy to effect that object.
If the prisoners «'*spired fegetiier, With
the intent laid jn the indictment, that com
pletes the offensecharged in the firstsixteen
counts, even though the conspiracy wa#
followed by no act tucarry it int* effect.
To hand i#defined t> be "-to associate, fo
fitiite.*' Thus we read in the acts sif the
Apostles that ''certain ot tho Jews handed
together.'* Their purpose was to kill l'aul.
Now, if the gathering together of these
armed white men was not accidental, but
designed, and if they had in view a com
mon purpose, or it having oouie together
accidentally, they engaged by express argu
ment or tacit understanding in a common
enterprise, this would be such a banding
together as is meant in tbe statute and in
the indictment.
Every banding together includes and im
plies a conspiracy. I do not mean a con
spiracy for an evil purpose, but a nnion of
minds for some common end.
So that npon tbe conceded facts yon can
have little difficulty in passing upon the
question of the banding and conspiring of
certain white men upon the oooaaioh named
in the indictment.
The real controversy between the prose
ratten and defease is touching the purpose
•ad latent of this heading rad ooaapiriag.
IT in Mill nr says it wa* with the sev
eral intents laid in this indictment, or some
of them. The dete.use says that it was
for a lawful and laudable purpose, and not
with the intents laid in the indictment, or
any of them. Here, then, gentlemen, is
the turning point in this case, aqd to this
you shoulu give the most caretnl scraziny.
For unless the prosecution has satified you
that tha purpose of the banding together
was that laid in the several counts of this in
dictment, or some ot them, there can he nt»
conviction in this Case, and you should re
turn a general verdictof fiot guilty.
No different Intend is laid iu the last
twenty-four count# of the indictment. Than
is alleged iu the first eight count#. Take,
then, those first eight counts, und con
eider them carefully, with a view to ascer
tain whether the intent Lid in these counts,
©r any of the* i« sustained by the proof.
The intent laid in ?h© first count is to in
jure, oppress, threaten and iff ini id ate Levi
Nelson and Alexander Tillman, with rho
purpose tu hinder and prevent theif free
exercise of tho right peaceably ta assemble-.
The right of peaceable assembly is one of
The rights secured by the constitution anil
law* of The United TLates. If citizen#
come together for a lawful and peaceable
purpose, their assembling i# within the
meaning of the constitution. The fact that
they assemble wirh arms, provided these
»rni» are to be used net for aggression, but
for their protection, does not make tbe as
semblage any The less a peaceable one.
If you find that the assemblage at Colfax
on the thirteenth of April last, Levi Nelson
and Alexander Tillman constituting a part
thereof, was for a peaceful and lawful pur
pose. notwithstanding the members of th#
assembly were armed, if tlx if arms were
merely 'for protection, and the persons
against whom th© indictment is pre
sented combined P* injure, oppress,
threaten or intimidate Ncisoa and Till
man with the purpose to prevent their
peaceable assembling, or to break up a
peaceable assembly of which they Were
members; or it the intent was #o t© iuti
miilate Nelsou ami Tillman that they
would fear t© Unit© with this fellow-citi
zen# in peaceable assemblies on future oc
casion*. then you would be justified in th©
conclusion that the utteal laid ia tki# count
i# true.
If oa tiie other hand the meeting of
Colored people at Colfax on tie thirteenth
<d April was not a lawl'nl and peaceable
assembly, and if yea should find that the
bunding together charged ia the indict
ment was not for Ike purpose of so oppress
ing and intimidating Nelson Tillman aa t»
present their freely juicing in future peace
able assemblies, thru y»u should fiud that
tho intent laid *© this eount ia not proven,
and no mutter what yen may decide as to
other counts, your verdict should be not
guilty iu the ninth, ecventeeutb *nd twen
ty-fifth eouut#. all *>f which chary© th*
earn# intent.
Next consider th© Intent ef the handing
ami conspiring laid *n tip} second count,
which is alleged to ha to intimidate, etc..
Nelson and Tillman, with th# purpose to
prevent their exercise «>f the right tokeep
and bear arm# iof i* luwful purpose.
The right to bear arm* is also a fight
secured b.v the constitution and law# «f
tb» United States, Every citizen of
tla* Uuited States ha# fh# sight to
bear arms, provided it is done for a law
ful purpose and in a luwful manner. A
man who carries Li* arms openly, and for
his own protection, of for any other lawlul
purpose, ha# a* dear a right to do so as To
carry liis own watch or wear his own hat.
If the meeting at Odtux «n* Apri^lJ, of
which Nelson aud Tillman formed a
part, xva* assembled, and vw bearing
arru# for it# own protection, and the
banding charged in th© indictment was
■with the intent to intimidate Nelson aud
Ttliman fit* a» to prevent their hearing
arm* on that occasion, or if the pur
pos© of th# banding together wa» so
to tn timid at© then* as To prevent or bin
der then* Iron* lawfully bearing arm*
in the future, then the intent charged iu this
count is made out. Ifthie intent is not estab
lished to your satisfaction l tier* your duty
is to return • verdict *d not guilty upon th©
second count, and also tbe teuth, eighteenth
and twenty sixth counts, which charge th©
same intent.
For t ii© present I pas* ever the third,
fourth, fifth and eighth count*, and call
your attention To the sixth and seventh.
The first of these mounts charges that the
intent of the banding and conspiring wa*
' to so Intiniidat© and oppress Nelson and
Tillman as to hinder them in Th« free exer
cise of their right t© Vote at elections to lie
held in tb© future, and lbs seventh count
charges an intent to intimidate Nelson aud
Till mat), and to injur© atul oppress then*
because they had voted r.t The election held
on the fourth day of November, 18712.
You will consider whether the iutent laid
iu these count.* has been proven to your
eaUdaetion. If it lias, then thero wilt be
other matters for your consideration under
these counts, if it has not, it will be y«ur
duty t« return a verdict of not guilty on
tlie sixth and seventh eonnts, and also on
the fourteenth, fifteenth, twenty-second,
twenty-third, thirtieth and tiiirty-liist
ceuiits, which chargothe same intent.
I now call your attention to the third,
fourth, fifth and eighth counts, ! class
them together because tuer© is general
resemblance between them. Take them in
their order.
The third eonnt charges tha intent of th#
alleged banding to have been to injure, op
press, threaten and intimidate Nelson and
Tillman, with th# purpose to deprive them ot
their respective lives and liberty of person
without due process of law.
It lias been bin red to you by counsel for
defense that the «>ffons# charged in this
count is not within the jurisdiction of this
court to try. ( eay to yoit, gentlemen, that
the'diene© described ia this, as well as in
tl*e ether counts of the indictment, is with
in its jurisdiction, Tbe court has the right
and power to try every count in thi# indict
Ui p nt.
¥uu will observe that this count does not
charge an intent t© deprive Nelson and
Tillman of their lives ami liberty of person
merely, but tt* do so teitkout tine pr»<xs& of
Ime.
The fifth amendment t© tho constitution
of tho United States declares that no per
son shall be held to answer for a capital or
otherwise infamous crime unless upon pre
sentment and indictment of a grand jury,
nor be deprived of life, liberty <*r property
without dno process of law.
The fourteenth amendment to the consti
Tntiot* of tho United States declares that
all persons born aad naturalized in the
United State# and subjoct t© the jurisdic
tion thereof, ate eitizen* ol the United
S r ate# and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges and ini
•muuiTies of vitizens of the United States,
nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty *>f property without due proves#
of law. _ .
The constitution of Tbe Stateof Loaisiaaa,
arctic!© six, Tide one, declares that prosecu
tions shall tie by indictment 1 or information
that the accus' d shall be entitled to a speedy
public trial by aa impartial jury of the par
ish tu which the offense may have been com
mitted. and have the tight, fn t>« beard by
himself eroounsei.
Section sixteen of the hef of Uongces* ap
proved May 31, 1870, entitled an act to en
foreo the rights of citizens of the United
States to vote in the several States of this
Union, and for other purposes (16 Stat., 141)
declare*: "That all persons within the juris
diction of the United States shall have the
same right in every State and Territory to
the full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings for the security of person and
property as is enjoyed by white citizens."
These' provisions of constitutional and
statute law show that the right of due pro
cess of law where the life or liberty of a
citizen of the United States and of tho
State of Louisiana are involved is secured
by the constitution and laws of the United
States. .
Now, under this third coant, it t* claimed
bj the United States that the indicted per
sons banded rad conspired to deprive
Tillman and Nelson ot their lives and
liberty without doe process of law.
That there wa* a purpose to kill
both, which Was aotually carried out
in the case of Tillman, and which was
attempted to be carried out in the case of
Nelson, because they were charged with or
supposed by the conspirators to have been
guilty of a violation of law.
H you find that the crowd of white men ,
who surrounded the Colfax oourtbouso on 1
the thirteenth of April entertained a com- ■
mon purpose te put Nelson and Tillman to
death for an alleged violation of law by '
them, and took measure# to carry out that
common purpose, I say to you that every
man who joined in that purpose, whether '
actually engaged or not, is guilty under the ,
third vount of this indictment. Ft Tillman ,
and Nelson bad broken the law in taking
armed possession of th# courthouse in Col- ,
fas. in arresting citizeps in the highway, in
robbing houses in the neighborhood, in ob
structing citizen# in their aocesa te the (
public buildings, in joining in a riot or riot-'
ens assemblage, in faring upon and killing
Hadnot and Harris, oc by their complicity iu ,
tliislasf act. or if they were charged of sus
pected of these offenses, or any other infrac-'
tionof the laws of the State,before they could
he punished fof them they were entitled to
due process of law. They were entitled to
a ptitdic trial by an impartial jurref the'
parish; te tho right uf being beard in their
defease by themselveoof their counsel, and ,
to tho right of tucetingthe witnesses against
them face te face. And it there was a com
mon intent among the indicted persons te
binder and prevent the enjoyment by Ni l-,
«on and Tillman of these rights by slaying ,
them, then I say to you that those persons
are guilty under thi# count. The intent
may be aiid ought to bs inferred from their
acta. If the natural result ot the conduct
of the indicted persons in killiug Tillman
aud attempting to kill Nelson wa# to de
prive Nelson anil Tillman of their constitu
tional and lawful right to a fair and impar
tial jury trial, then you are justified in hold
ing that such wa# their intent. If the in
dicted persons, believing <•» supposing of
suspecting Tillmtu* and Nelson to be guilty
of a public offense, Took th# administration
of the law luto their own hand# and clew
them, or attempted t# slay them, thus depriv
ing them or attemptingtodeprivo them of a
trial according to the law of the land, then
all person# who banded together with that
intent are guilty under the third count of
tho indictment.
It icnot necessary-that tki# intent should
have been originally entertained by the al
leged conspirator#. Ft need nol have ex
isted before the thirteenth of April. It need
not havevxisted before the surrender of the
courthouse. If after that event aud after
the shooting ot Hadnot and Tillman the
common purpose wa# entertained by the
crowd of men around the courthouse to put
Tiltwian and Nelson fo death for their sup
posed or actual violation of the law, and
that common purpose was evinced by acts,
hut is sufficient, and every man among the
allegedcobspiratoroentertaining that, pur
pose or in any Way aidiug or assisting iu
carrying it out is guilty under tho third
count, is guilty under the eleventh count,
and if m the prosecution of that purpose
murder has been committed is guilty under
the nineteenth and under the twenty-sev
uth count#, all chest* four count# charging
the same Intent.
The law under which thi# prosecution is
earth'd on was framed for the express
purpose of punishing just such act# os
these. N© raau or body of meo has the
right tint* to tales int© their bands tho sum
mary administration of what they may
suppose te l* justice. One of tho dearest
right# ol the citizen i# the right t©duo pro
cess of law, and no body of men can band
«r conspire together with intent to injure or
oppress the citizen, for the purpose of de
priving him of this right, without failing
under t!># ban «f this law of Congress.
You must dismiss From your miiids any
idea that a state of war existed ut Colfax
«u April 13, or that martial law tva# then
aud thero iu fore#. The civil, and not mar
tial law, prevailed, which know# no cut'll
thing a# truce# or flag# of truce. If .Till
man und Nelson bad any complicity in fir
ing upon and killing iludnot anil Harris
while bearing a white flag, they may have
been guilty of murder; but they were not
guilty of tiring upon a flag of truce, fof the
civil law knows no such offense.
Having considered and passed upon the
third count,you will next turn your attention
te Th© fourth count. T'h*a lays the intent
of the banding aud conspiring tu have beet*
to injure and oppfes# Tillman and Nelson
with* view t<> prevent theif free exercise
atnl enjoyment of their viglit te the equal
benefit of all laws enacted by the Unitea
States and th© Stateof Louisiana for the
security of their persons and property, and
enjoyed by white citizen# id the .State of
Louisiana.
Gentlemen, I need only say in feference To
this count, that the same facts which would
justify a verdict of guilty tinder the third
count would sustain a verdict of guilty un
der this. If you find a banding together of
th© indicted persons lor the purpose of op-*
pressing Tillman and Nelson, with the inteul
te deprive them, by slaying them, of the
right tu a fair and impartial jury trial for
tome offense committed, or supposed to
have been committed by them agaiost the
law. Then such persons are guilty—and you
shimld #o find hy your verdict. Furttier, if
you fiud that tbe intent of the conspirators
wa# to prevent the enjoyment by Tillman
and Nelson of the equal benefit of auy
ether provisions of the constitution and laws
than those securing due process of Jaw. you
would bo authorized ta convict them under
this count. . .
The intent laid in the fifth count issimi.
tar tu that in tho fourth, and with the ad
dition that the injury which if was the pur
viose of the alleged conspirator# to inflict on
'S'elsjn and Tillman was, it is alleged, on
account of their African descent. The
faors which would sustain the fourth count
would sustain this with proof of the addi
tional fuct charged, namely, that the
moving cause of the intent was tho descent
of Nelson anil Tillman from the African
race.
Th© vightt* eount l# very broad, and
charge# an intent te preveut and hinder
Tillman and Nelson in the enjoyment ol all
the rights and privileges granted and se
cured to them by the constitution and laws
of the United State. Ff you find a handing
together with this intent, you should return
a verdict of guilty under this count agaiiiBt
the persons shown to have been so banded.
The proof which would justify a verdict of
guilty under th© fourth, fifth and eighth
count# would authorize The same
verdict under The twelfth, thirteenth
and si*Teentb eonnts, and if, in the
prosecution of the banding or con
•piracy charged iu those counts, Alexan
der Tillman was murdered, then the addi
tional proof ©f the fact would authorize
verdicts of guilty on the twentieth, twenty
first, twenty-fourth, twenty-eighth, twenty
ninth and thirty-second counts.
The names of Alexander Tillman and
Levi Nelson are used in this court as the
person* against whom the unlawful attempt
wa* leveled. It is nut necessary to prove,
©r for you to find, that the alleged conspira
tors had a particular intent directed agaiust
theswuien specially. Ff tli© intent applied
to the crowd of colored men, and Tillman
aud Nelson formal a part of that crowd,
that is sufficient to sustain tho indictment
even though the names and persons of Till
man and Nelson were unknown tu tbe «on
spirators.
Nelson and Tillman ate described ifa the
indictment os being in the peace of the State
of Louisiana and of the United States.
This means, gentlemen, that they had
not forfeited their lives to the State
or the United States that they were not
public enemies, and that although they
may have been guilty of crime, they
were still under the protection ot the la
and retained their constitutional and law
ful rights. It does not mean that they
were not engaged in a breach of the pe&ce
or in Ibe commission of an unlawful act
If yon shall find the banding and eon
spiracy to be proved, with the intent laid in
tne indictment or in any of the counts,
then it will be your duty to consider fur
ther whether the prisoners nov on trial, or
any of them, an guilty. For though you
anight ha of opinion that - tin iraiM
charged had haw twnntttod by othan of
the ninety eight included in the indictment,
yet it is necessary for you to decide upon
the evidence whether these nine nrisoncr#
at the bar, or any of them, are guilty. Did
they take a part in -the banding and
Conspiring charged in the indiotmunt!
I recommend to you to take the case of
each and consider it separately anti decide
upon it.
The defense olaitua that «ve» conced
ing that others are guilty, yet the per
son* oa trial had no art or part in the
offense charged, and to prove this much
testimony has been introduced to show that
they were not present on the thirteenth of
April.or on other occasions when armed
bauds of tbe conspirator# are charged to
' are assembled.
It i» only neees«afy foi*the prosecution fo
show a banding or conspiring with the in
tent laid in the indictment. When that is
done th© offense is complete, without any
acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Act# in furtherance of the common design
are generally sliowu to prove the con
spiracy, and they are legitimate for that
purpose, and may he sufficient to establish
tho conspiracy, and often, in fact usually,
are with direct proof of the conspiracy.
The defense claims that Clement l'enn ia
not guilty, because he never bauded or con
spired with the intent laid in the indictment.
Evidence has been adduced to show
that during <* part r>f the thirteenth of
April hs wa# on Ihe opposite side of the
Red river from Colfax; that he only
crossed tha river after tho fight was over,
and then not to take any part in the unlaw
ful acts of the conspirators, but fora lawful
purpose. On tli# other hand, it is claimed
by the United States that be *vna an actor
in the dread scenes of that day, both during
and after the conflict. Theie is much ana
conflicting testimony on this point, and you
must decide what yo* will believe. If you
find fie wa» one of those who banded or
conspired witli the intent laid in the indict
ment, you should find him guilty.
Conceding that he remained on ths oppo
site side of the rives until tho tight was
ever, y©» ff h© then crossed and found
whaf had been xlone and approved of it,
and assented to it, and, with a gun in his
hands, guarded for a while the prisoner#
which were afterward ehot, then he i§
guilty, even though he returned across the
river betere any further act# of violence
were done. But if be had no hand in the
conspiracy previous te April 13 in anyway;
if he remained on that day on tbe opposite
eide ot the fiver, and then, supposing the
affaif to be over, crossed without, the pur
pose of joining ia or aiding it, and returned
without so doing, then yot* should find him
not guilty.
The same defense, substantially, is set up
for William Uruikshank. tt is admitted
that he wa* in Colfax on the thirteenth of
April, but it is claimed that he reached
there only after the light aud for the pur
pose of re eovef ingsomo stolen property, and ,
that he did not at that time or at any other ,
time take any part in the conspiracy. It is '
claimed on the other hand by the prosecu ,
tion that ha was early in the conspiracy, as
early as the seventh of April, when Calhonn
was arrested, aud That ho was an active
participant in the eceires iu Colfax on April
13. These disputed facts you must settle
from the testimony. If, however, yon fiud
that Uruiksliauk did go to Colfax oh
tho thirteenth of April, even though 1*6
went to recover his lost property, and
after ho reached there, comprehending
the purpose «f tho conspirators, remained 1
there, giving Them the encouragement by
his active participation or by h's words of
approval, even though he committed no act
of violence himself, Jie i# guilty, and you
should so fiud him.
Two other* of the prisoners, it is Hot de
nied, were present at Uolfax during the
whole or the greater i«*rt of Easter Sun
day. These are William B. Irwin aud John
I*. Hadnot. Thoproseeution claims to have
shown that they joined the conspiracy early
in April, and that on Easter Sunday they
formed t# part of tho company ®f whito
men who attacked the eourth >use, killed
and wounded the tiegfoes who hail taken
refuge there, and afterward put to death
the prisoners. If you find this to be true,
you tvill not Fiesitato to return a verdict of
guilty agaiust both. It matters not whether
scraonally they tired a gun or struck a
tilow. if they were present, comprehended
the common design, and gav# it their ap
probation and enoouraguieut,tliat is suffi
ieut to fix npon them lh© guilt of con
spirators.
Tliis rule applies to th© eases of allof the
prisoners on trial who are admitted fo have
been present in Colfax on April 13-^to
Vnn. Cruikshank. Irwin and Ifadnot.
It is specially claimed for Irwin that ho
was in attendance in Colfax in pursuance,
of a demand upon him by Nash to accom
pany him a* a partot his posse coniitatus.
It is not claimed that Nash held any war
rant to arrest any peisou iu Colfax. Isis
admitted that his purpose was to retake the
courthouse, and that this was what Ir
win was called upon to assist in doing. J
say to you, gentlemen, that under the ad
niitted facts iu the ease this demand of
Nash upon Irwin is no defense to this in
dictmeut or any count of it. If the intent
charged iu the indictment is proved, no
summons «r demand from Nash could ex
cus© the acts of tho alleged conspirators or
**D.y of them.
Here is a dispute between certain persons
touching tbe possession of the parish offices.
There is a peaceable way of settling such dis
putes. They can not lawfully bo decided
by wager ot battle. And he who appeals to
violence to settle such a question, and all
who aid and assist In *ucU appeal, are
violators ot the law.
For four other ot the prisoners on trial,
namely, Oscar Givens, Dennis Lemoine,
Pvailhomni© Lemoine aud William Hick
man, the defense is set up that they never
at any time banded or conspired as charged
in the indictment, and that they were not
present in Colfax on the thirteenth of April.
The prosecution claims thatihey were early
iu the conspiracy, and that they were all
more or less prominent actors in the scenes
ot Easter Sunday. It is not necessary, in
order to establish the guilt of these parties
to show that they were actually pres
ent in Colfax on the thirteenth of
April. If the prosecution has satisfied
that at any time during the
month of April they banded or conspired
with the intent laid in the indictment or
any of its counts, they are as much guilty
as if they were prominent and conspicnous
actors to the eud. If they joined tbe con
spiracy at auy time before its alleged ob
ject had been accomplished, they are as
much guilty a# if they had been its original
instigators.
There is a conflict in the testimony in re
gard te the presence of these prisoners in
Colfax on Easter Sunday. You must en
deavor to reconcile this testimony, if possi
ble, without imputing perjury to either
side. Ff this can not be done, then it is for
you te determine which eide of thi* con
troversy you will believe.
Consider the proof offered in the ease of
each one of these last named prisoners to
connect him with the conspiracy, and the
proof ofiered to exculpate him. If you are
satisfied by the proot that they or either of
them at utiy time banded or conspired with
the intent laid in the indictment, or in any
of its counts, you should return a verdict of
guilty upon those counts which you shall
fiud proven. If you are not so satisfied
yon shou'd return them not guilty.
The prosecution submits to you the case
of Alfred Lewis—claiming, however, that
the proof of an alibi eubmitted by him fails
to establish that defense. Be this as it may
yon would not be justified in finding him
guilty if the proof for tbe prosecution
leaves your minds in doubt as to his guilt.
For he is not hound to prove an alibi or any
other defense until the United State* has
made ont a prima facie case of guilt against
him. You will look into the evidence in his
cose, and if voi are satisfied that his gnilt
is not established you will return a verdict
of not guiltv. Bat if, looking at all the
evidence in hi* case, your minds are clear
in the oonviction that he is guilty it will be
your duty to *ay so.
Having thn* gone through with tha rasa
of each priaoaer on trial, H yra shall find
that there was aa h—$ing «r n an o ptrlng
with the intent laid in the indictment or
auy of its counts, or if you shall b©
of opinion that there was such band
ing or eonspiriDg with the iutent charged,
but shall not be clearly satisfied tha* the
prisoners on trial, or some of them, were en
gaged in the banding and conspiring, then
you will return a general verdict of not
guilty. But if you shall find any of the
prisoners guilty under any of the first six
teen oouuts of the indictment, then it will
be yonr duty to oonsider whether, in the
proseoution of their unlawful design, Alex
ander Tillman was murdered, as charged in
each of the last sixteen oouuts of the in a
dictment. • •
Murder in Louisiana is murder as defined
at common law; and murder as detiued b.V
the common law is where a person of sound
memory and discretion unlawfully killeth a
reasonable creature in being, and under tho
peace of the State, with uialioe afore
thought, express or implied.
If you shall find the facts that Tillman,
after he had laid down his arms and bail „
left the oonrthonse, and was endeavoring to
leave the scene, was purposely shot and
killotf by the alleged couspirutors, yon
would bo justified in the conclusion that
the crime ot murder was committed upon
liis person. The law presumes that if one*
of the alleged conspirators discharged af*
Tillman is) deadly weapon, and he was
thereby shot and killed, that the person s<»
firing intended to do what naturally re
sulted trom his act. Tne killing to be mure
der must have been done with malice afore
thought. "This is not so properly spite o!»
malevolence to the deoeased in particular an
any evil design in general—the dictate of a*
wicked, depraved and malignant heart—a*
purpose to do a wicked act, and it may b* „
either express or implied in law. Ex
press malice is where one with t* sedate,
deliberate mind and formed design doth
kill another. So in many cases where no
malice is expressed the law will imply it a#
when a man willfully poisons another. In
each a deliberate act the law presumes
malice, though no particular enmity can be
proved." Blockstone's Com., Book 4, p. 198.
"There is no particular period of time*
during which it is necessary that malice
should have existed or the party should?
have contemplated the homicide. If fo#
example, the intent to kill or do other great
bodily harm is «executed, the instant kt
spring# into the mind the offense is a*
truly murder as it it had dwelt therefor**
long period." 2 Bishop's Criin. Law, sec*
677.
Under these instructions you will dotes*
mine whether in the act of prosecuting tha*
unlawful banding together and eonspiroov,
charged in the indictment, Alexander Till
man was murdered by one or more of thw
alleged conspirators. If yon so find, then
those of the prisoners at tuo bur whom yoi»
shall find guilty under any of the first six
teen counts, yon ought to find guilty units*
corresponding counts charging a like inteug
in the last sixteen counts. If you find that
no murder was committed upon the person
of Tillman, then there can be no conviction
under the l«pt yixteen counts or either ut
them.
I add this qualification, that if yon should
find that any of the prisoners at the baf
joined the conspiracy for the first time after
the killing ot Tillman, you ought not to find
such persons guilty upon the capital counts.
You may acquit all the prisoners on trial
on all the counts, or find them guilty on all
the counts. You may find a part guilty#
and a part not guilty, according as you may
determine. If yon shall find any of the
prisoners guilty, upon any ot the last six- •
teen counts, it is your right to return a ver
dict against them on suoh oouuts "without*
capital punishment.'*
Gentlemen of the jury, the case is now
committed to your hands, it is one of mag
nitude to both the prosecution and defense.
On your verdict may do|>end the peace an<^
order of the State; on it docs depend the
liberties amf lives of the prisoners at th^
bar. Give it your best deliberations.
Though you may be convinced that a most
atrocious and and appalling crime was com
mitted at Colfax on Easter Sunday lust*
though you may believe that white men et#
jaged in that terrible attair left the neigh#
borhood on that Sunday night with hand%
red with the blood ot helpless prisoners,
that alone is not a ground lor » verdict of
guilty. You must be clearly satisfied thajp
the precise crimes described in this indict
ment, or in some of its counts, were com
mitted b.y one or more ot the prisoners af
tho bar. If you aremot so convinoed, yot*
should acquit. Oil tho other hand, if you
are persuaded by tho evidence that thw
prisoners, or any of them, banded or coW
spired with tho intent laid in this indiot#
iBt-nt, or in any of its counts, I trust yow
will Lav# the courage, I trust there i%
enough good and lawtul manhood among
you to say so by a verdict of guilty. And F
pray God to lead you to a true and just coil
elusion.
The courtFooin was literally jammed
with people, among them quite a number
of ladies.
Attorney Gewera? Field was present*
seeming greatlj* interested iu the pro
ceeding#.
Jmlg# Wood# and fhe court officers re#
mained in tkeir offices late last night, and
id not retire until they felt certain that $
erdict would fioU be gendered before to
day'© session.
After tho jury retired last evening sevc
eralof the members stood at the window
on Decatur street, and as it was possible
that some person might communicate with
them, Officer Boylson was detailed and
sworn in by Judge Woods to guard that
section.
At tw© o'clock this morning our reportek
made a renonnoisance, finding the jury room
in total darkness, and obtained a report
that all tho jurymen liad retired for the
night, not having signified that there was
auy likelihood that a verdict could be or
would bo sent in, whoreupon Judge Woods,
clerks and the marshals left the building.
Waiting for the verdict was then the
order, and it i* quite probable that a de
cision will be made to-day.
HC. Loaf# Globe Relief Fond.
The following letter was received yew
terday by Governor Kellogg, and *ihe
amount transmitted was promptly placed
in the hqnds of Mrs. Fry:
tiLomi Orrica, i
8t Louis, UaicU 11,1U74. S
T# His Excellency Governor Kellogg:
Inclosed please find draft for $">05 20, be
ing the remainder of the fund collected of
th# (llobc office for the benefit of Mrs.
Captain Fry, making, with the sum at
|f)D0 already sent you and receipted for,
$10C.1 20. It ought fa tve been scat sooner,
but I was unwilling to abandon the hope of
making it larger, and I had seen in the
newspapers a statement that Mrs. Fry was
temporarily absent from New Orleans.
If you will have the goislness to forward
this sivin as you forwarded the lost, you
will greatly oblige,
Very respectfully yours,
__ WILLIAM M cKEE.
Blackmail,
Suit was begun in the oiroii't court a few
days since by Thomas Ratcliffs, of Louis
iana, a rainst'Alfred W. E lett. for $1f00.
Plaintiff says that in March, 1861. hs was
the owner of 200 bales of cotton, which was
at Bouduvant landing, Tensas parish,
Louisiana; that the defendant El lett was an
officer in the United States army, attacked
to the "Marine Brigade," oporafing on the
Mississippi river, and had the command of
a large number of steamers; that he wa*
desirous of getting his cotton to New Or
leans, but there wa* no organized oi vil gov
ernment; Ellett refused him permission to
•hip his cotton an less plaintiff paid him
$5000, and threatened to prevent it* re
moval, rad plaintiff wa* forced to, nnd did
pay Urn tho $9000. He sow bring* nail to
----. foned from him
| by —Id W a rt ■ * Xowfc