The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1878-02-21
WAS GEN. ANDERSON TRIED
FAlRLY2


Gen. ANDERSON has been tried and
convicted before a court and jury in
New Orleans of having tempered
with election returns and falsified
them, the technical charge against
him being forgery. 1t is nov said
that his trial was not fairly conduct
ed. If we believe SO, we would be
first among the foremost to condemn
it. Under no circumstances is an
unfair trial ever to be upheld or ex-
cused. 1t is an injustice which no
emergency, no supposed necessity,
either justifies o. palliates. +
But, thus far, we are unable to dis
cover anything unfair in the trial of
ANDERSON. The evidence against
him appeared to us very strong,
while that in his favor was certainly
very weak. It is alleged that the ju-
ry was packed; but there were two
colored men on it, and it was sup
posed that if there was the slightest
pretenee for ~pronouncing him inno-
cent, they would stand out against a
conviction.
Judge WHITAKER, who presided
at the trial, is alleged to be defaul
ter to the Government of the United
States. If WHITAKER is guilty,
however, it by no means follows that
ANDERSON is innocent. The ques-
tion whether WHITAKER is guilty or
innocent could only be determined
on a trial of WHITAKER. 1t could
not possibly constitute an issue in
the trial of ANDERSON. 1t is said, in
fact, that a trial of WHITAKER, in
which this was the issue and the
only issue, long since took place.
and that the jury acquitted him with
out leaving their seats. At al
events, his alleged d~efalcation, the
amount of which is put at 100000
is represented to have occurred II
1867, eleven years ago; and if the
Government has allowed such a claim
and such a crime to remain unprose
cuted all that length OF time, the
fact argues a most delinquent and
disgraceful administration at Wash
ington. The interposition in behal
of Anderson of John Sherman. Stan
ley Matthews, Eugene Hale, Harr,
White, and James A. Garfield is
matter not only or personal impor
lance to these parties, but Of th,
deepest political significance. VIII.
should they interfere? Such a thing
is without precedent. They sa..
they believe ANDERSON is guiltless
The time and place to have mad,
that appear was at his trial. 1t is
however, only an "unhesitating be
lief" that they express. Believe
are not of much avail, nor are they
of any consequence in such a mat
ter. The signers of the published
letter to ANDERSON do not pretend
to any knowledge, which is all they
could testify to; and if they had an,
facts which they knew tending tt
show ANDERSON innocent, they
should have been in New Orleans
while his trial was going on to give
evidence of them. We fear these
gentlemen who are now ~s.unhesita
ting" in their belief, have sometimes
been sunhesitating'' when it woult
have been better, not to say safer
for them to have hesitated.
The letter signed by these gentle.
men goes on to express to Gen. An.
DEksoN their hope that the people Of
Louisiana will protect him, "and not
permit the oest interests ofthe whole
country to be disturbed by u revival
oil sectional animosities."
What does this mean? How are
sectional animosities TO be stirred
up by the prosecution of a mar in
Louisiana, under the State laws, fol
the crime of forgery, any more than
by the prosecution of another mar
for the same offence in the State Of
New York? Sseh q thing AM be
possible only upon the s%upposition
that there had been a bargain or I'm.
Outstanding between certain North.
ern parties and certain Southern
parties, who profted by the crime.
that this particular offender should
go unwhipt of justice for this partic-
ular offence.
Fair trials are one thing; condor
alton of the crime that declared
HAYES President is quite another.
". Y. Sun