222 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



in the section. Any one of these furnishes 

 good ground for peremptory exclusion from 

 the jury-box, the right of exclusion being 

 placed by the section in the hands of the party 

 to the suit; so that, under that section, any 

 party to a suit may work the exclusion of a 

 juror by asserting his right of challenge. The 

 conference report proposes to repeal that sec- 

 tion entirely, so that the right of challenge 

 exercised in that way will be abolished. If 

 the conference report be adopted, a party to a 

 suit cannot of his own motion exclude any- 

 body from a jury for any of the causes enumer- 

 ated in the act. 



"The second section, however, we propose 

 to leave unrepealed. What is the effect of 

 that section? It provides 



That at every term of any court of the United 

 States the district attorney, or other person acting 

 in behalf of the United States in the court, may 

 move and the court in their discretion 



"I call attention to this provision. First, 

 the prosecutor may move, and, secondly, the 

 court in their discretion 



may require the clerk to tender to each and every 

 person who may be summoned to serve as a grand or 

 petit juror the following oath or affirmation. 



" Then follows the form of an oath declaring 

 that the person has not engaged in any of the 

 disloyal practices enumerated, which are sub- 

 stantially the same as those specified in the 

 first section. In other words, if, in the first 

 place, the prosecutor moves, and, secondly, if 

 the court in its discretion sustains his motion, 

 then, and then only, can this oath be tendered 

 to a juror for the purpose of his exclusion. 

 Then at the end of the section it is provided 

 that any person or persons declining to take 

 the oath shall be discharged from service on the 

 grand or petit jury to which he may have been 

 summoned. The third section simply declares 

 that the taking of that oath falsely shall be 

 perjury. 



" It will thus be perceived that the effect of 

 the amendment is to rest it wholly within the 

 discretion of the officers of the court to deter- 

 mine whether any oath shall be required. The 

 matter is placed completely under the control 

 of the court. Now, as that is the existing 

 law, we have believed it to be safe to rest that 

 discretion where the existing law leaves it. It 

 is believed that as the enactment of this bill 

 may create a large class of cases which may 

 become political cases, and in which the courts 

 of the United States will have jurisdiction, this 

 fact, instead of furnishing a reason for the 

 repeal of the existing law giving such discre- 

 tion to the court, furnishes a reason for con- 

 tinuing that provision. 



"Induced by these reasons, the conferees on 

 the part of the House so far yielded to the 

 views of the Senate as to permit this matter 

 to remain where it seems to me it is always 

 safe and wise to leave challenges of almost any 

 kind, and especially challenges of the kind 

 provided for in this class of cases under exist- 



ing law. This, I believe, is the last matter of 

 difference between the two Houses, except 

 that relating to what is known as the ' Sher- 

 man amendment.' 



"I will now state, Mr. Speaker, accurately 

 if I can, what the effect of this section will be 

 as agreed to by the committee. First, it does 

 make a liability for a class of damages or 

 injuries which result from riotous disorders. 

 It must be kept in mind no other damages 

 except damages produced by riot are within 

 the section. In all these other damages in the 

 second section by conspiracy or any thing of 

 that kind which do not amount to riot and 

 that has its well-known legal significance, and 

 means two or more persons tumultuously as- 

 sembled and doing unlawful acts and doing 

 them in an unlawful way, by force and vio- 

 lence if it comes short of that offence com- 

 mitted tumultuously in the face of the com- 

 munity, then it is not within the section at all. 

 Nothing is in it but such disorder as that. 



"Next, the amendment agreed to by the 

 committee of conference completely changes 

 the remedy granted for the mischief, by pre- 

 venting a claimant, entitled to recover, from 

 resorting to property of individuals at all, and 

 confining his right of recovery to the county 

 or city in which the mischief was done. If 

 done in a city, then the action must be against 

 the city. If in a county and outside of a city, 

 the action must be against the county; and of 

 course the people of a city as tax -payers in the 

 county being to that extent liable. Then, as 

 to the method of enforcement of the judgment 

 when recovered, it provides they shall have 

 the remedies applicable in cases of judgments 

 against corporations of this municipal charac- 

 ter. It does no more. It provides for enfor- 

 cing judgments by mandamus or by any other 

 appropriate remedy applicable in like cases. 

 It goes to that extent exactly, that such judg- 

 ments may be enforced in the known and usual 

 methods of the law. 



" It does more. It permits the parties who 

 did the mischief to be united as defendants 

 along with the municipality sued. It does still 

 more ; it requires the municipality shall not be 

 made liable to pay that judgment until there 

 is execution returned showing the money can- 

 not be made out of the individual defendants. 

 It requires two months to elapse before judg- 

 ment can go against the municipality. It re- 

 quires at first the exhaustion of the means of 

 collecting the liabilities from the individuals 

 doing the mischief. It puts the city or county 

 in the position of guarantor, provided 

 other parties are sued. The county or citj 

 being interested in having such defendants can 

 move to have any party made defendant to a 

 suit for its own protection. Thus we have 

 guarded, as well as it could be done, the county 

 or city by appropriate proceedings. 



"The Senate I need not say was exceedingly 

 earnest and positive in insisting there should 

 be something of the character retained in the 



