The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-01
ANDERSON'S RELEASE.
Views of the Country Press on the De-
cisiOn Of Our supreme Court.
claiborne Guardian.l

claiborne Guardian.l
The Supreme Court of Louisiana through
Chief Justice Manning have rendered a de-
cision in the State VS.. Thomas 9. Anderson,
setting aside the verdict of the jury. and or
dering the release of Anderson. This result
was not expected by the people, They had
anticipated a confirmation OF the judgment of
the lower court, and had supposed that the
prisoners release If it came at all before the
expiration OF his sentence, would come from
Gov. Nichols who would make use OF his par
doning power.
We do not propose to question the correct
ness of the decision of the Supreme Court.
The gentlemen who compose that august tri-
bunal are learned in the law, are pure and
upright men. The Chief Justice, the organ of
the court has given in lengthy opinion the
| reasons which prompted the court to the de-
csion, and as we see no notice OF any dissent
ing opinion we presume that the other four
justices acquiesced in the law and logic of the
opinion. We regret the opinion; we are cha
grined to know that 1t is impossible for the
arms of the law to reach the group of villains
who deserve the detestation Of all honorable
men. But in our chagrin we will not so for
get honesty and reason as to charge the Su-
preme Court with the failure to punish. We
know something of the duties of the judiciary.
Very often they must act contrary to public
opinion, indeed their decisions are only valua-
bib because elevated above caprice and clamor
of the populace. We believe the five judges
have performed their sworn duty-have acted
honorably and intellgently. The statement
made in Washington City that the decision
harmony and good wifi sought to be fnaugu-
rated by Hayes is as offensive as If the
judges were charged with corruption and
bribery. We conceive that these gentlemen
acted as their cOnscienceS and capacity re-
quired them under oath-no more or no less.
We cannot pander to popular sentiment by
joining in any abuse of them.
Let the people remember how intricate a
science Is law, how often the most learned in
the profession differ, and remember also the
past stainless character of our judges before
they pass judgment on them.
[Lincoln Sentinel.l
We publish this week the decision Of the
Supreme Court in the Anderson case Many
have not seen it, and may want it for pre-
servation. 1t is unique in this that it decides
OF forgery. The consolidated. returns were
forged, but the commissoners' returns were
such alone as the law specified from which the
result should be obtained. This is a techni-
did publish forged figures, and defrauded the
people of the United States. 1t was forgery.
Because they had not altered the original re-
turns, but in consolidating, forged figures
purporting to be from these returns and pub
liShed them as such, it is not, the Supreme
Court says, forgery.
1t is beyond our intellect to see the differ
ence Ii there is a distinction. Ii the statement
was not susceptible of forgery, it was not
forgery, that is certain And il 1t was not
forgery it was correct, and il correct, the
present Supreme Court are usurpers, and
should to be consistent, vacate their present
position and return to notorious obscurity.
The compilation Of the Returning Board was
true, or it was false The Supreme Court say
it was not false and reversed the decision OF
the Superior Criminal Court, when, abashed
by their own decision, have given time to the
State for rehearing. If the foundation is
rotten as they say, the superstructure cannot
stand, and the State cannot lay another
foundation. Verify, Daniel hath come to
Judgment.