The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-04-03

The decision of the Supreme Court
of Louisiana yesterday in the case OF
Anderson, the convicted member of
the Returning Board, will bring JOY
to several prominent persons espe.
cially to Secretary Sherman, who
protested SO vehemently against his
conviction, and to Governor Nichols
who was under an implied pledge to
pardon him if the Supreme Court
should affirm the Judgment of the
court below. Since it was a fore
gone conclusion that Anderson was
to be set free, either by an executive
pardon or judicial decision, nobody
should be sorry that his release came
in the latter form. Had the Su-
preme Court sustained Anderson's
conviction the pardon which was to
have followed would have caused a
great public scandal. 1t would have
looked too much as if Gov. Nichols
had bound himself by apolitical bar
gain to interfere with the admins
tration of criminal justice. Ander-
son having been released by the reg
u:ar course Of judicial proceedings,
not only Gov. Nichols escapes an
unpleasant dilemma, but the appear
ance is avoided of the obstruction Of
justice in State by Federal dicta-
tion or pressure. Since Anderson
was to have been set at large in any
event we are glad that it has been
done by regular judicial action and
not by an extorted exercise Of the
pardoning power in fulillment of an
unseemly political bargain. The
Legislature of Louisiana, which had
been assembled in extra session
merely TO give effect to a possible
pardon, Immediately adjourned yes
terday on the announcement of the
decision of the Supreme Court. 1t
may be safely assumed that this
ends all the Returning Board prose-
cutions. j. Madison Wells will re-
joice even more heartily than Gov.
Nichols and Secretary Sherman.
The country is to be congratulated
that it is to hear no more of the ever
lasting Louisiana muddle. - New
York Herald.
The decision Of the Supreme Court
of Louisiana in the Anderson case
seems to have gone beyond even the
petition of the defendants counsel
in it's sweeping reversal of the judg-
ment of the court below. The most
that seems to have been expected by
Anderson's counsel and friends was
the ordering of a new trial, either on
the grounds of defect in the jury
panel or the discovery Of new evil
dence for the defense .or both. But,
according to our telegraphic dispat-
ches, the Supreme Court went be.
bind both the techinal points raised
by the counsel for the defense and
the invalidity urged against the
forms of the trial to attack the sub
ject matter Of the Indictment itself.
AS we understand it the Supreme
Court Of Louisiana holds that Mr..
Anderson's offense was not iDdicta-
bic under the statute; that his crime,
whatever it may he in morals, is not
legally presentable by a grand or
triable by petit jury in any form
under the existing statutes of Lou.
isiana. This, we are informed, puts
an end OF the Returning Board trials.
The commentary is that the people
of Louisiana have no remedy against
those who may have conspired in the
past or may plot in the future to an
null or reverse their expressed will at
the polls. Ofcourse we can't speak
positively upon these points until we
see the text of the opinion Of the
ISupreme Court. But our informa,
tion by telegraph points conclusive.
ly in the direction we have indica-
tied. Thus, we remark that the doc
trine held by the Supreme Cour,
seems to be extra-judicial to the las,
degree, if not absolutely revolutions
airy. The notion that forgery ceases
to be an indictable offense wheneve,
it is committed upon election re
turns, backed up by the ruling tha
the documents proven to have bee,
forged by Anderson and his accom-
plices we're not public document
within the purview of the law, i
doctrine that will be likely To arms