The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-07

sent to other officers Of the State who have
duties to perform. This paper Is evidence
that the Commissioners OF Election have
transmitted to the supervisor returns as re-
quired by law. It is evidence that this officer
within short period has examined these
returns and ascertained the results to which
he certifies.
Any person with ordinary intelligence will
Immediately perceive in reading this extract
that Its author, when he wrote this officer"
referred to the super visor, and that meant
that that officer 1.-THE supervisory had, within
q short period, examined the returns and
ascertained the results to which he had GER
tilted. Further on, therefore, when the At
torney General argued that "the clerks GER
tificate, although directed by the law to be
appended, is not Of the substance Of this docu-
ment, but mere formal matter-a part OF the
election machinery Of the State, and it's omis-
sion, while rendering the clerk culpabIe
does not destroy the validity of the record"
he made very strong and convincing ar
gument, that ''the paper on which Anderson
had been convicted, though lacking the for
mntity OF the clerks signature, was public
record, such as Anderson, by forging, could
injure the State and defraud the people with"
Upon the other hand, when the Supreme
Court misquoted his language, and made him
say. in one sentence, that the paper
prepared by the supervisor of registra-
ton was an evidence that the clerk within
a short time had examined the returns and
ascertained the result to which he had certi- |
fed, and In another paragraph that the clerk |
certificate lis not of the substance of this doc
ument, but mere formal matter" and that
its omission does not destroy the validity OF |
the record, the Attorney General Is made to |
appear as contradicting himself and as ex-
hibiting but little comprehension OF what he
was talking about.
1t is unnatural to presume that so exalted
a tribunal as the Supreme Court would con-
descend to so undignifed subterfuge as this
for the purpose, not Of establishing any essen
tial point on their side of the case, but simply of
the force OF an argument presented
against them by the Attorney General We
are forced, therefore, to assume that the
court did not condescend to pay strict atten-
ion to the brief Of the law officer of the
State. and by an unfortunate inadvertence
yarbled his language. This assumption,
however, must still further weaken public
aith in the court. II they have not conde-
'cended to rigidly examine every argument
N which jury of the country convicted, and
N able judge sentenced this malefactor. but
ave arrogated to themselves all knowledge
# the law and the facts, they must not be }
If their judgment meets In every ,
mansion and cabin of the State pronounced Z
nd unqualified Misrepresentation
1t may be that some persons less i'm Y
ressed by the solemnity and sacredness
Supreme Court than ourselves NAV \
elieve that this alteration in the brief
the Attorney General was Intentional
nd purely subterfuge. It is seldom that q
myers make open issue with the judiciary,
nd there are few public journals which have
le temerty to criticise the judgments
COURTS which stand upon such high
round. as the Supreme Courtl which I
as pronounced Tom Anderson an
innocent felon," and released him from the
utches of justice. Reasoning upon these
cts, uncharitable men, or violent men
hose passions often Outrun their Judgment
ay declare that the misquotation was
territorial; that its purpose was to weaken r,
e strong position OF the Attorney General
fore the country. These impractcable
'SPsS
pected that the Attorney General,
'feated and ridiculed by the court, would
cept with silent dignity the end that the
ess would not venture to examine into the
after, and that the public would side with
e court and charge the failure of the pros r.
ution upon the incompetency of the law
icers of the State
We take issue with all such persons. We i
9 certain that the misquotation was acct
ntal and unintentional, and that no one re-
cts it SO much as the members of this court, T
OF whom are gentlemen Of unblemished
es. We have only pointed out the unfor- -
nate mistake OF the court for the purpose
doing the Attorney General justice and
ldicating the DEMOCRAT in criticising the
csion.