Feliciana sentinel. [volume] (St. Francisville, La.) 1877-1892, 1878-03-30
ANDERSON'S CASE.

There has been good deal of criti-
cism upon tho de cision given by the Su-
pr.lne Conrt of Louisiana in the case of
r&os. G. Anderson charged with forgery
in altering public record OF. with utter
ing it after being altered. We have
been surprised to SEQ some of these conf
meuts in tho public print. We say sur
prised, because the Judgment is not yet
final. After the reading Of opinions by
the Supreme Court certain length of
time is given during which applications
for rehcarings may be made, and until
that time has elapsed the Judgments are
under coutrol of the court. Outside in
huences are, therefore, as improper at that
period as previously. And particularly
when this.outside pressure is brought to
bear in seIrse adverse to clemency in
criminal prosecutions, it would seem
that inhLmanity is added to. indelicacy.
We do not, therefore, intend at t is
time to express an opinion upon the ac-
ton Of the Court, but'we desire to give
& sketch of certain principal portions of
tie decision and in language snited to
popular comprehension, so that our read
ers may not be confused by technical
expressions nor obliged to wade through
the whole decision in order to master it's
real import.
The election law provides that the Re
turning Board, as it is generally called,
shall meet in Me- Orleans soon after
every election, and there receive the re-
turns or statements Of the votes cast at
the different polls; that the President
of the Board shall open these returns in
the presence of the other me- mbers, and
that thereupon the. Boa rd shall canvass
and compile said returns. The returns
which they shall thus receive, open and
canvass, are the returns or statements of
votes made by the three commissioners
Of elections who preside over every poll.
These are called the original returns.
In addition to these original returns
from each poll made by the commission
org of elections, the Board receives con-
solidated statement of all the polls in
each p.rish made ont by the supervisor
| of registration Of such parish for the
law makes it tine duty of such supervisor
tn receive the returns from tho commits
s;oners of elections, compile a consolida-
| tod abatement from them, and then send
| them together with his consolidated
| statement to the Returning Board.
| In the Anderson case it was not
charged in the information as amended
! that the original returns had been
changed or tampered with, but that the
uoousolidated statement Of votes, parish OF
Vernon. made by the supervisor Of regis
+,ation" had been altered, and, as so al
tared, published as true by Anderson.
| The Court seems to incline to the opin-
that there can be no such thing rs
forgery of the "consoliddted' statement
in the legal sense Of the term forgery
| .foryery" in tho criminal law is not
avery countcrfeiting Of another's sigma
trre or altering of words over another's
SIGNATURE. Though such All act may Dc
a forgery in tho moral law the criminal Ia"
loesnot take cogl,izance oft unless 1t car
have some prac ctical effect. 1t is us IN the
c.se ofperiury. Ifone should swear be
f,re a. crowd of men in the street, that tht
ann Is down when they all gee it shining, h'
would commit perjury in the moral, pn'
l ot in the technical sense He could moi
- nrosecuted for it. In the same way
there NAV be forgeries of which the law
does not take notice Thus II one shon''
write ont q pardon for condemned cf'm