The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-04
LAW VS.. JUSTICE.


To the nop-professional mind the decision
of the Supreme Court in the Anderson case Is
far from satisfactory or Ineligible. There is
no doubt but that the people feel that great
injustice has been wrought, though they may
not be able to controvert the technicalities of
law which have operated it. The elements
Of crime, as laid down by the law, are very
simple and easily understood. They consist
of nothing but the act itself and the criminal
intent which controlled the agent in perpe-
trating it. These proved the crime is COM
pIete and the penalty Of the law is deserved
and generally incurred. II 1t is avoided, the
people feel and know that a great injustice
has been done and that felony has gone I'M
whipt Of justice. II we have read Alright the
decision Of tho Supreme Court refusing the
rehearing in this case, 1t comedies that
Anderson has committed great crime,
for which statute provides a punish
ment, and under which he is guilty In
intent and act; but it declares that his con-
viction has been obtained In violation of law.
1t appears then, that it Is the law, and the
law only, which stands In the way Of justice
and shelters the convicted felon from the con-
sequences OF his guilt. According to great
and universally recognized principles OF law,
Anderson is guilty Of statutory Of
Tense, but by bubble. touching none
OF the essential elements OF his crime,
he Is declared not innocent, but rescued
from the penalty the law denounces
against him. In this conclusion Justice may
have been done him, but much graver in
justice has been done the people, and Of this
they have every right to complain and to
visit their resentment on those who have
wrought it.
There is an old juridical precept-.Summum
jus, summa nyuria- which says that the
"highest law Is the highest injury" Shake
speare sezes upon this maxim and makes 1t the
groundwork, the fundamental idea of one of
his most splendid dramas, in which he clearly
establishes by a series of illustrations. that
the principle has its foundation In natural
Justice which Is the foundation Of all law
Shyo,k has, clearly, all that is material
except justice, on his side; but while he
seizes and follows his right to the letter. he
falls through it into the deepest and most
criminal injustice. 1t seems to us that the
precept is one which the Supreme Court has
entirely ignored in It's decision OF the Ander-
son case. 1t has chosen to enforce the sum
mum Jjus-the letter of the law-and in doing
this it has overstepped tho bounds, and
wrought the "highest injury" by falling
to realize that In their decision right
and unright are so closely driven
up into the same limit, that they are
no longer separated but Immediately pass
over one to the other. The distinction is in
deed 80 intangible that it is hard to seize, and
much harder to present clearly to the untu-
tored mind 1t nevertheless exists, and the
wrought though they may not be able, as we
have said, to controvert the technicalties of
law which have operated 1t. 1t was, however,
the duty of the Supreme Court to draw the line
and make the balance even to the end. It was
It's duty to interpret and apply the large and
universal principle of natural justice, as well
as the slender and narrow bubbles of techni
cal law. When these conflict, as they often
do, the law Is plain that the higher principle
must control. Do not the judges of our SUI
preme Court understand that they must be
swayed by the spirit and not the economical
letter of the law? Must they make the pen
atty of gigantic wrong subservent to the
paltry subterfuge of a lettered imbeciity?
Between the crime of which Anderson is
guilty, by their own confession, and the crime
of which he was convicted, there is surely
disparity which should satisfy all the de-
mands Of charity, Of mercy, or Of technical
justice. Morally, practically, he was guilty of
the very highest Of crimes, while he was
legally convicted Of the comparatively triflng
offense of forgery. The enormous disparity
between the actual offense and the statutory
crime, between the deserved punishment and
the legal penalty, Is In itself an injustice SO
grave that the interpretation of a miserable
technicality between the criminal and the just
punishment OF his conceded guilt might have
been spared us. The enormity of the Offend |
ing we shall not even attempt to describe. It |
is enough for us to know that Anderson is
guilty, and that there are none to deny
it. The Supreme Court itself comedies
this, and yet it rescues him from the penalty
the law imposes upon his offense, by a |
ruling which touches none OF the essential
elements OF the crime of which he was con-
victed. The act itself was contaminated and
the motive which prompted it was criminal.
These facts are conceded, but we are tt Id that |
Hte instrument WHtCH UCtOHtpttSfteU Tue CRIME
,ras not the instrument the lao describes as
the one qpah ,chich the crime should haze
been accomplished. This not being the
instrument SO described, the accomplished
act, the historic infamy is not fact of which
the law can take cognzance, and the criminal,
in act and intent must 60 free because he |
has not complied strictly with the letter of the
statute under which his conviction was
sought.
This may be law, but we doubt 1t, and we
know that is not justice. II law is to defeat
justice, if an aliunde is to thwart right here
and nudnm pdctum to avoid it there then
the law Is detriment to society and
wrong.
OF IT ic hoino. in