Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/97

 82 FEDERAL REPORTER. �to vote sues an officer of election for refusing his vote, or where he is the party plaintiflf whose right of action is dependent on his legal qualification, he should set out the facts on which his qualifica- tion rests; yet that rule does not apply where, as in this case, the defendant is not the voter, but a defendant in a criminal proceeding against him for unlawfully interfering v?ith the voter. It will devolve on the United States at the trial to show affirmatively that Batton ■was a legally-qualified voter, entitled to cast his vote for a represent- ative in congress at the election named, but the detailed facts on which his qualification depends need not be averred in the indict- ment. �The other ground of demurrer is well taken. True, an indictment, using the same terms, was before the United States supreme court, but its attention was not directed to the point now under considera- tion, nor does it appear what, in that case, was the full language of the court. �It is clear that no federal statute can interfere with voters, except at an election for representatives in congress, and then only as to their protection in voting for a representative in congress. Hence it is essential that it bo charged in the indictment that "at an election for representative," etc., the offence was committed; and it is not sufficient to allege that "at an election at which a representative was voted for," etc. It may be that the election in question was for some other purpose, over which the federal government had no control, and with which it had no right to interfere. But the defect is still graver when it is averred that at an election where a representative was voted for, Batton was a qualified voter, etc., and entitled to vote, and that, when proceeding to oiier and deposit his ballot, he was prevented by threats and intimidation; yet nowhere is it alleged that he offered, or proposed, or was about to vote for, or was qualified to vote for, a representative in congress. �It would hardly be contended that because congress may pass alaw to control congressional elections and protect voters against unlawful or violent interference with the right to vote for congressional repre- sentatives, therefore, whatever occurred at an election which did not interfere with such a right must be considered within the terms of the act, because the words are general, viz. : "Unlawfully prevents any qualified voter of any state * * * from freely exereising the right of suffrage, " etc. The language must necessarily be so con- strued as to confine the provisions of the statute within constitutional limits. ��� �