UNITED STATES V. CAHILI». 88 �There was a suggestion made by defendant's counsel in argument as to the so-called threat, as set out in the second count ; but as the special demurrer raises no such point, the court does not pass upon
- fc, It may be that the specifie language should be construed as qual-
ifying the general averment ; and if, without further averments, the specifie language was not an unlawful threat, the indictment -would fall. �While it is of great importance that purity of elections and the free exercise of the right of suffrage be enforced in all. cases, yet it is equally important that there be no usurpation of jurisdiction, one tribunal with another. So far as the act of congress takes supervis- ion of elections for representatives in congress, there is no difficulty as to federal jurisdiction ; yet there may be mixed elections, or elec_ tions at which local ofiScers alone are to be voted for. �If, at a mixed election, a voter appears to cast his ballot Bolely for a State or municipal office, and is interfered vrith in his attempted exercise of that privilege, or if, under the state law, he is qualified to vote for local officers, and not for a representative in congress, and is interfered with, does the act of congress apply ? Hence, should not the indictment speoify that the election was for a representative in congress ; that the voter was qualified to vote for a representative at the time and place averred; that said qualified voter appeared at the poils and offered or attempted to vote for a representative in con- gress ; and that he was unlawf ully interfered with in such attempted exercise of that specified right ? �If this be not so, then the federal jurisdiction must be held to ex- tend to whatever local elections are held at which any one casts a vote for a representative in congress, whether the election be for that purpose or not ; and that if at such an election a vote is cast for such a representative, any one who appears to vote for a local officer can- not have his vote challeuged without incurring the penalty of the fed- eral law. These extreme cases are stated to illustrate the position that the indictment must contain needed averments to bring the alleged offence within the constitution and laws of the United States, The court holds that the offence must be charged to have been for interference "at a congressional election" with a voter qualified to- vote and offering to vote for a representative in congress. �The demurrer is sustained. ��� �
