The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1878-02-27

the forged return, as produced In court,
was the Identical paper looked at by Ans
delson when III It's brigIhai eonditibn II
was idehtifiesl by a respectable lawyer by
the marks which lie placed upon It at the
time. aa s
Among other testimony, stenographer
was introduced, who reported the doings
lof the returting Board, His record
Showed that Kenner, one Of the Return
bag Board. read the return If tile heariiig
nf Anderson, that Anderson's chair WAS
as near Keiner's chair as II was possible
for one chair 10 be TO another; that Ander>
son made public inquiry whether these
were the returns, and WAS answered by
Kenner; the true vote was also proved rs
stated above Other testimony was nj
troduced showing the iinpossibility o:
Andeison's not having known the true
vute of the parish,
Tie utterance and publication Of the
forged return as q true record was also in
disputably shown Anderson concurred
with his associates III using that forged re-
turn in the canvass by the Returning
Buard. He incllied in the compilation
and computation Of the votes. He certi-
fled officially that the statement in which
tile false aud forged footings of the Vernon
parish were set out atfnll length was ''a
true correct compilation Of the statement
ofvoles.n lie certified the elections ac-
cording tO that v,ie. lie signed these
certificates. He Joined Ia making an
official and public record, containing these
falsehootls aud forgeries, and ia using that
record as an official and public record, and
IN depositing IL ailpug such records. His
perpetration Of the offence defined by tile
statute was thus complete and perfect. IL
Is not necessary here 10 refer 10 other evi-
dence going To show the guilty. intent.
The juey were perfectly authorized aud
Justified III inierring that intent from the
facts we lave already stated.
Against this array OF proofs there was
nothing that amounted 10 amy defence at
all. The mali. attempt Of Anderson 5
counsel was 10 contradict witness who
stated that Anderson had ayowed the in-
tent To disregard the real votes in th.
conclusions Of the Returning Board; and
the caItious objection that there was
some wholly unimportant iGfurmaIity in
the Vernon parish return which deprived
IL of the character ofa public record. We
add that in conducting the trial Judge
Whitaker was. from first 10 last, niojer.
ale, just. aud judicial.
The history of this Vernon parish for
gerry can be found la the testimony before
tile investigating committees ofGoDgress.
IL was there proved that the forgeries
were committed by deputy clerk Of the
Returning Board under the direction Of J.
Madison Wells, President Of the Return.
ing Board; that the precinct statements
were burue'l up to prevent discovery; that
the consolidated statement Of the parish
vas directed by Wells also 10 be burned
up; That when sOOn afterward the commit.
tee Of Congress canie to New Orleans
Wells was apprehensiye that discovery
would be made aud directed that q new
statement should be prepared, IN which
three polls Of the ten contained in the
! Vernon parish should be excluded, and
the same result produced as had been
effected by the transpsition Of votes Ia
,wo districts. How this scheme fell
through, how the forged record was pre-
served, and other incidents VI the tlansac'
tion, 1t may be interesting to nairate on
some future OCCASION. All that can be
proved Ia this respect did not appear on
the trial Of Anderson. Itmay perhaps b,
developed In the trial Of Wells. Will
the great abundance oftestimony In the
ease OF Anderson IL was not necessary tU
produce this other evidence.