The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-07-19
RETURNING BOARD EPIsTLEs.

| Gen. Tom Anderson, late Of the Returnin,
Board, has printed two letters in the Ne,
| Orleans Times, one in reply to the observa
tions OF the DEMOCRAT on Wells letter to tn
New York Herald, and one in response to TIL
recent letter of District Attorney Finney
| The object of Gen. Andersons epistles is u
| sustain Wells declaration that "the Gran,
Jury absolutely refused to find an indictment
which drove the District Attorney to tn
necessity of filing an information VIII,
Anderson persists in unfolding this statemen
Of Wells it is difficult to understand
The DEMOCRAT stated very clearly the rea
son why the Grand Jury did not indiet, bu
| instead directed the District Attorney to fill,
information. Wells and Anderson affirm tina
the Grand Jury positively refused to find an in
dictment because there was not sufficient evi
dence before them to warrant them in doing
50. In refutation Of this dogmatic statement
we here reproduce the note of the foreman Of
the Grand Jury to the District Attorney:
GRAND JURY Room, |
New Orleans, June n, 1877.
The Grand Jury respectfully recommends
that the honorable court will instruct the Dis
trict Attorney to file the proper informations
~. l.
son, G. Casanave and Louis nj. Kenner, mem
bers of the late Returning Board, for perjury,
forgery and altering the returns OF the par
ish OF Vernon and other parishes Of the State.
JOHN A. O'BR1EN.
Foreman of the Grand Jury.
Now If the Grand Jury had not sufficient
evidence before them to warrant an indict-
ment, why did they direct the District Attor-
ney to file information and prosecute the
members of the Returning Board for perjury,
forgery, etc. But this is not the only utter
ance we have had from the Grand Jury show
ing that the evidence before them was full
and irrefutable. A few days ago Mr.. B. M.
Turnbull, member Of the Grand Jury, and
we'll known citizen of New Orleans, said in an
interview with a representative of the DEM
oCRAT:
After all the data that I have become pos
sessed Of in the effort to bring them 1.-THE MEM
bers of the Returning Boardl before the bar
of Justice to answer for their misdeeds, |
think that Ii was impossible fOrsthe officers of
tuted these proceedings without rendering
themselves guilty OF condoning with perjury
and felony.
The unsupported declarations of Wells and
Anderson that the Grand Jury refused to in
dict them because there was no evidence to
justify such a step are utterly worthless in
view Of these facts.
The members of the Returning Board were
not indicted because, as the DEMOCRAT
stated, it was thought some technical
objection might be made to it's author.tS. 'and
an effort made to quash the indictments on
the ground that they were not found by
legal Grand Jury.
Wells and Anderson both seem anxious to
impress tho public mint with tfe belief that
jhe action of the District Attorney was
by some deep, hidden and sinister
motive. We do not believe that either of them
s sincere in this. They are both familiar with
section 2140 Of the Revised Statutes, which
subjects members of the Grand Jury to severe
md ignoble penalties IL they fail to present
o their own body persons whom
hey know to be accused Of crimes.
Wells and Anderson also know that every
nan, woman and child in the parish of Or
cans have heard them accused of perjury
md forgery; they know that nne-tenths of
his community, nay of the people of the State
believe that they have committed these crimes;
indeed they know that millions of people
throughout the United States believe
hem to be guilty of perjury aud forgery,
Ii Gen. Anderson writes another letter to
he Times, we ask him to answer us categori- |
ally, IL he does not know that this belief in
lis own and his associates criminality per-
AIDES the whole community, nay the whole |
ountry, to such an extent that the name of |
anderson, or Of Wells, or of Cassanave, or of |
h, In, ;rh
orhood of the American Union without sug-
esting the thought of perjury and forgery, |
hen, with the duty of the Grand Jury so |
learly prescribed by the law and enioined |
nder the severest penalties, and with the |
uspicion and belief of the criminality of the |
lembers of the Returning Board pervading |
very household OF the land, what miserable |
sulking; what pitiful snealSing and crawling
!, is on the part of Wells and Anderson to at
smpt to accuse the law officers of an improper
+ extraneuous motive, or, indeed, of any
ther motive than the plain and obvious
ne, in prosecuting them! Crime is always
ideous; it Is always to be condemned;
ne safety of society requires that it
hall be always, when possible, punished.
ct when it is accompanied by courage it
,ses something Of its responsiveness; the
igher quality lends it measure Of dignity,
nd under some circumstances excites our
ympathies and compels our mercy. But
hen it stands forth in its own nakedness,
'ithout even pluck to palliate it; when it
rawls and squirms in cowardice and
eceit, it is intolerable, and all honest men
re prompted to scourge it out of sight and
ito the iails and penitentiaries with whips
I scorpions.
We shall not waste time and space in fol-
owing Gen. Anderson through his technical
les and bubbles. Whether he and his asso-
iates have been indicted or are accused on
lformation filed by the District Attorney:
Thether the crime with which they. stand
harged be perjury or forgery, or the publica-
ion of forged paper, is of little con-
equence; he can settle the manner
( the accusation and the designation
the crime to suit his own fancy.
he stubborn fact which interests the public.
nd which will sooner or later chiefly interest
im is that he, Wells, Casenaye and Kenner