The People's vindicator. [volume] (Natchitoches, La.) 1874-1883, 1878-04-20
THE ANDERSON DECISION,
IN. O. Democrat

r,s"r~r".-'-,.-.---~--
THE ANDERSON DECISION.
n. O. Democrat
No one, we believe, was either
shocked or astonisled at the decision
of the Supreme Court Monday, refu
sing the State a rehearng in the An
derson case. The wonder and indig-
nation of the people were exhausted
when the orr cinal very extraordinary
decision was rendered. That seemed
so much in the nature of a job that all
men were certain that no reasoning
could avail with the court. and that
the Attorney General would be sum-
marily overruled. Indeed, the only
thing at which we have heard any as
tonishment expressed is, that court
which rendered the first arbitrary and
insolent decision condescended to ar
cue the case at all on the application
for a rchearing.
We shall not attempt full review
of the very ingenious decision of this
learned court in the Anderson CASE
Greater learning in the technicalities
and short. cuts of the science or art OF
law than an humble journalist IS pre-
sumed to possess would be necessary
for that task. We shall only express
the sentiment and belief of the popu-
lar heart, that the decision was pc.
litical one. prompted by policy and
not by the great and enlightened
principles of jurisprudence. and then
point ont two or three instances If
which the court "dodged,' if, with
reference to so august body, we may
use 81 rude an expression, and which
show a fixed and settled purpose t(
strain the law and the authorities fol
the great overriding purpose of re
leasing an infamous and convicted
criminal, whose crime agitated thu
whole country and constitutes thu
foundation of the greatest fraud eve
perpetrated upon constitutional liber
ty in this or any century.
The concluding sentences of thi
decision are truly noble; worthy, in
deed to have fallen from the lips Q
the purest and greatest jurist win
ever expounded the law from an en-
lightened standpoint and in the inter
est of justice and society. "Let it b
known of all men," says the Chic
Justice, speaking for this high tribu
nal, "that a court can consider Meth
er expediency nor policy; that it can
not shape its judgments either to re
alize the hopes of friends or to quie
the fears of foes; and that judges ma
abhor malefactor, and yet refuse t
condemn him contrary to law"
Certainly these are fine words
words which will receive the sanctio
of all good men. But has the ST
preme Court of Louisiana been stric'
ly guided by the large and enliehter
ed theory of action it has laid down
Has it been as jealous of the rights
society and Of the great principles
law as it has been Of those of an od
Gus and most infamous malefactor ?
f Has it done in this case for the pei
pie, for public justice, as much as
has done for a convicted felon {? II:
it guarded the rights of society at
the freedom of elections with the san
ingenuity that it has those of IL
scoundrel who has violated the la,
outraged public decency and alternate
himself from the sympathy and r.
spect of mankind9 We believe not
Without going over the whole d
cision, we propose to show the unfai
ness with which the Supreme Cou
acted on two or three points, al
through these points to show t
character of the whole decision viii
has released Tom Anderson.
In the first decision, reversing th
of the lower court, the Supreme Coz
declared the Supervisors Consolidat
: Statement was not such public re
o ord as could be forged. The Alto
10 ney General, in his brief asking fol
J. rehea1ing, assumed that the questi
s, as to what constitutes a record is
E, matter of fact to be proved like oil
II facts, and had been determined in
case by the jury. In support of
position, he quoted the language
s Chief Justice Parker, of Massacbuse
- in the case of Brier vs.. Woodbury.
9. Pick, 362), ia which that eminent
" rist said: "A record is conclus
e, evidence, but what is, or is not,
Ia record is matter of evidence,
It. may be proved like other facts; o
We erwise there would be no remedy.
II Now, commenting on this illustri
49, 49, authority cited, by the Attorney 6
~ eral, the Chief Justice of Louisa
says:
ut would have been extraordin
y. if so high an authority as Chief J
ed tice Parker had sanctioned sue
doctrine, and he is the only jurist
" ted to support it in tue printed bl
id. and if his language had been give'
in foil, as we shall give, the. ident
to case cited is shown to be in acc
ell with the we'll established rule.
ry- Brier vs.. Woodbury., l Pick, 1862,
is cited with the observation that
conclusive Of the question, whe
an instrument is or is not a pu
record is a question Of fact. The