79

against him and be confronted by his witnesses, but we are
told that these gentlemen have been convicted of riot, and
committed to jail, without the intervention of the grand
jury. This differs with other cases. Persons were sum-
moned by the Sheriff to be sworn in as a posse comitatus, and
it cannot be an unlawful assemblage when they come there
to obey the law.

Mr. Schley then reviewed the law defining what consti-
tuted a rout and riot. There must be something to cause
terror and consternation and a tumultuous assemblage, to
constitute a riot. There was no evidence that there were
any such proceedings at the Sheriff's office. In the case of
Mr. Young, he was arrested without oath or warrant. He
was arrested upon the evidence of Fuller, which related only
to Mr. Valiant. What Mr. Valiant said to Fuller did not
implicate Mr. Young, although Fuller said Mr. Valiant used
the word "we." The concert of action between the two.
must be shown before the statement of one can be given in
evidence against the other. The demand made by them
floes not imply that they intended to take any but legal
measures to obtain their office.

Judge Bartol said—My inquiry is simply as a magistrate
to determine the question of probable cause. The Commis-
sioners have issued a proclamation addressed to the police
force, which paper was not objected to.

Mr. Schley.—There was nothing in the paper to show that
the Commissioners did not proceed by mandamus. I do not
think that the Governor authorized them to take the office by
the posse comitatus. I hope that when your honor decides
this case, as I trust you will in favor of the new appointees,
that the ex-Commissioners will gracefully retire from office.
I hope that there will be good and true men surrounding
them, who will so advise them, and that in an hour after-
wards, they will come forward and say, "We surrender the
office." I look forward with a strong hope, now that the
election is over, that they will yield up the office, without the
necessity of a mandamus or a quo warranto. There was no
evidence to authorize the arrest of Mr. Young. He and the
Sheriff were arrested without law, upon no oath or affirma-
tion, and I rely upon the same principles of civil liberty in
both cases.

Mr. Schley then reviewed the proceedings under which the
Commissioners were arrested, and asked, "Is there no limi-
tation upon the power of a court to commit a man for one
offence and try him for another ?" The opposite counsel say
the commitment used on Saturday to keep the peace is final-
ity. But on Monday an amended order of commitment is
issued, charging them with conspiracy. One commitment
requires them to keep the peace by desisting from any at-
tempt to exercise the duties of their office. That is one of