e jury through
their counsel. This is a right guaranteed by the United States
Constitution. (See Article VI. of the amendments to the U.S.
Constitution. 1 Graham and Waterman on New Trials, pages 682,
683, and 684.) 4. The defendants were substantially deprived of
the right of jury trial. The instructions of the court to the
jury were imperative. They were equivalent to a direction to find
a verdict of guilty. It was said by the court in the hearing of
the jury, that the case was submitted to the jury "as a matter of
form." The jury was not at liberty to exercise its own judgment
upon the evidence, and without committing a gross discourtesy to
the court, could render no verdict except that of guilty. 5.
Admitting that the defendants acted without malice, or any
corrupt motive, and in accordance with their best judgments, and
in perfect good faith, it was error to charge that that was no
defense. 6. The defendants are admitted to have acted in
accordance with their duty as defined by the laws of New York (1
R. S. Edmonds' Ed., pp. 126-127, sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
and 19) as construed by the Court of Appeals. (People _vs._
Pease, 27 N. Y. 45.)

They are administrative officers and bound to regard only the
evidence which the statute prescribes. They are not clothed with
the power to reject the vote of a person who has furnished the
evidence which the law requires of a right to vote, on what they
or either of them might know, as to the truth or falsity of such
evidences. They have no discretion, and must perform their duty,
as it is defined by the laws of New York and the decisions of her
courts. 7. The defendant, William B. Hall, has been tried and
convicted in his absence from the court. This is an error fatal
to the conviction in his case.

The court denied the motion; then asked the defendants if they had
anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced, in response to
which they replied as follows:

BEVERLY W. JONES said: Your honor has pronounced me guilty of
crime; the jury had but little to do with it. In the performance
of my duties as an inspector of election, which position I have
held for the last four years, I acted conscientiously, faithfully
and according to the best of my judgment and ability. I did not
believe that I h