The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1878-03-02

In the Superior Criminal Court at New
Orleans, on Monday morning, Thomas G.. An
derson, of the Returning Board, was called
for sentence. A motion in arrest of judg-
ment was overruled, and he was asked il he
had anything to say before sentence was
passed. He said he considered his case q
cruel persecution under the forms of law, but
he was in the power of the Court and ready
to receive sentence. Judge Whitaker replied
that defendant had had o fair trial before an
impartial jury, and that the verdict was fully
justified by the evidence. In consequence of
the recommendation to mercy he sentenced
Anderson to the lowest term under the law,
namely, two years imprisonment at hard
labor in the penitentiary and the payment Of
the costs, A suspensive appeal was granted,
rsturnable on Wednesday. A motion 10
transfer the cases Of Wells, Kenner and Case
nave 10 the United States Court, on the ground
that they could not have q fair trial in the
State Court, viii be heard on Wednesday,
March 9th.
"a cruel persecution under the forms Of
law" says Anderson. "a cruel persecu-
ton, reiterates the sympathetic Republi-
can press, while Judge Whitaker declares
that the defendant had a fair trial, before
an impartial jury, and that the verdict
was fully justified by the evidence. And
yet Republican journal, in Maryland,
afirms that the Louisiana Returning Board
did no more no less than their conscien-
tious duty Partizan prejudice and blind
ness, dense and impenetrable Darkness,
worse than Egyptian, thus to ignore the
plainest and most irrefragible proof.
There are several things about this trial
and its results that we do not fully compre-
hend The jury which convicted the pris-
oner recommended him to the mercy of the
Court, aud the Court, in pursuance of that
recommendation, imposed upon the convict
the lightest sentence possible under the law.
What were the mitigating circumstances,
in this case, the public are not advised.
If, as Anderson aud his sympathizing
friends allege, the case is one of 'cruel
persecution" why would the jury recon-
mend him to mercy, and the Court respect
that recommendation This is one thing
which we do not understand On the
other hand, upon the presumption of An
derson's undoubted guilt, and even upon
the demonstration Of il by documentary as
well as parole evidence, what extenuating
circumstances prevailed with the jury to
make this merciful recommendation
We're there any? Ifnone, was it resultant
from the fact that the quality of their
mercy was not strained-simply the work
ings of human sympathy for a fellow be-
ing who had fallen from the heights of
social and political elevation to a felon's
DOOM This also VIC are at loss to I'M
derstand. Andersons crime is as deep
and damnipg as that of treason. Nay, all
the crimes known to the Newgate calen-
dar could not outweigh It in enormity It
was crime unparalleled in the history of
republics, crime against the whole peo-
pie, against the country at large, and one
that might have involved her inhabitants
in revolution and anarchy, and occasioned
untold horrors. That mercy is proper IN
der such circumstances is beyond our COM
prehension. Ifexample is worth anything
to restrain evil doors from the perpetra-
tion of crime, then punishment common
surate with the offence, whatever that Of
fence may be, ought to be administered;
and the greater the crime the more rigor-
Gus the penalty. Mercy to the perpetra-
tor of crime Of such magnitude may be
readily understood as cruelty and outrage
upon the body polite. Let us fervently
hope that the punishment, whatever its
measure, meted out to this miserable eul-
prit and his associates in crime, may be
sufficient to save our common country from
ever again being suspended over the very
vortex Of ruin, as it was, through their
agency, pending the late Presidential con-
feet