St. Landry democrat., 1878-03-30

upon no principle of law in regard to
ft'e soundntss of which there conll hc a,
SERIOUS question among candid, t!iSinter-
t csted and enlightened jurists through
out the country.
The record upon which this decision
lttS been rendered contains more than
ii We hundred pages of written matter.
The counsel for the State had scarcely
the time necessary to prepare for so i'm
port anu an argument, aS the case WAS
fixed by preference with only three days
motto e. The argumeut occurred on
Iuest lay, ana the decision of tn. court
was cad upon the following Monday.
Erio rs have crept into his dccl>inn no
doubt both from the inprrfectinl of
the pres e.ntatlOn made by the State, and
from the. sh"rtness of the period daring
which the court held ti,e case undercon-
Sidrlarinn. A conviction that you will
be not only willing but anxious to cor
rect thoSe errors it | ;m able to make
them apparent, rmbOldra's me to lay be-
fore You this application.
The constitution gives y Ou an appel
late jurisdiction in crimina cases OF ly
upon questions purely ut law. Youcan
Ms Vt Try an Isl Tie OF fact. Whether /,
| pa."tlcular document is or is II, 1t IL record
| is il ! every Case necessarily auL'eStlon to
be ). 4ttled by evidence. Take ti.'e Gocu-
ment under discussion and s,,puo>e that
| OH it's face it SHOULD not appear to be a
record would not prove that if has b, Ell
offered ami received IN evidence. in Il
court o / Justice make it at once a public
record Hnd constitute its alteration Il
crime III. uter the statutes Is not this too
plain for discussion This question is
settled in the able opinion of Chief
Justice Pa fker, OF s!e supreme court OF
Mas>achu> ests, oiit ot the very first jur~
lists of this. country and age. In The.
case of Rre EN- vs.. Woodbury., reported
i'll 1St Picke ring, 365. the Question arose
as to whether it particular instrument
which was a LEGGED to have been forged
ami altered, WAS or Wis tts,t Il record |
ami tho court says: |
"A record is conclusive evidence. but |
what is OF is not a record rs matter of.
evidence, and may be proved like other
Facts; otherwise there woui1 ht' no
remedy"
y 1t is evident that the judges charge
cord, aud the means 10y which they were
to reach Il conclusion upon this point,
was the sole matter for review IL this
court. Ii tile charge upon tliat point
Was sufficient, the finding OF the jury
under it is beyond your reach, because
1t necessarily embraces All inquiry into
the facts connected with the document.
No better illustration OF the Importance
of this principle could he found than
that presented 10y this very case. The
jury reached the conclusion that this
paper WAS stsrecord not only from what
appeared upon its face, but from the
proof of several witnesses, that this
particular document had been received
by the board Of returning officers us Il
record, acted upon by them as such,
fal>itied as such, and finally carried into
their compilations as such, and made,
with other documents of the same kind, :
the basis of that gi gantic fraud by which |
the voice OF the people OF this great
country was hushed, ANA the will of
four men enthroned at Washington. Z
1t IL document formidable enough to;c-
complish all this evil is not IL record,
what Is 1t {
1t Is useless to say that the forgery of
these consolidated statements could
cause no injury. That forgery did cause
great and irreparable injury. 1t not
only deprived individuals of rights, but
1T actually overthrow II government
which had been elected by the people.
All this the jury knew, but you could
not kb0W as a court, because, under the
constitution, you can not notice any j
isAtiSi vi ldCC Ill a. tilltIltlil cHStr Atiu T
from all this it plainly appears that this
court ought not to have interfered with :
the inding of the jury upon this point.
But assuming tor argument sake that
fiie court had right to pass upon this
Question. The statute is that any per- o
son WHO shall utter and publish lis true {
any false, altered, forged ur counter y
frited record with intent to defraud any {
person shall on conviction, etc. Il
The paper charged to have been al II
tered or faisifed is !, paper which the
oI registration OF every par o
lsii is required to make after each elec- ii
non in the State. This ot1iceris charged
20 receive from the commissioners of
election at the different polling places -
their certificates aud returns. He is re-
4ulred to examine these papers and re-
port the results of the election in the b
parish at large, in what is termed d COLI
solldated statement III the act The re-
turns To him and his consolidated state A
'nent he ia required to send to the re-
turning board. The fact that this con-
Falsified by the defendant has been es- I'll
Tabished by the verdict of tue jury. al
lhe question is whether this paper r.
comes within the purview aud scope Of 10
he statute? IS
At the common law, forgery consisted pi
1t the altering Of II writing fiau,lnlently T.
% lnjnre another. the purpose being to
ave To the writing an operation which,
II truth, 1T ought not to have. At the =.
Onmon law the cOunterfeitiug or al
eiing OF any authentic matter of il a
public natqre was Il forgery, BECAUSE all =:
public matter which tue law requires to
" authenticated, it falsitied or cuuu-
is preSumptively perliiclous &c
nd tends to the injury of the common
wealth. The instances put of such o,I
apers are certificates Of holy orders. etc. Pa
| late case decides that forged letter an
t recommendation for service as pl
is publshable under the r" In'
tw, ntgina VS. -ocuOrmau, "a l.. and 1877
!. Y. 553. eri
The paper prepared by the supervisor Ia
registration is a paper of public sal
ature-directed to be made by the leg 7
iature-to he certified by officers of ~. ,tn,
ne State and to be carefully sealed up AM an,
18th other papers and sent to other Off inf
ars OF the State who have duties TO sal
erform. This paper is evidence that IN, fni
10 commissioners of election have N"
ansmitted to the supervisor returns n
J required by law. 1t is evidence that -
lls officer within short period has 8
Samlned these returns and ascertaius =
IL results TO which he certifies. If by D1
~ fraud or accident the commissinn-
8 returns be falsified here ia some r.
ieck, and here is furnished some evil 'A
nee of the fact. ANY variance IL
Ils statement from that which the rn- p
rnlng board might make would )a.d issl
inquiry and detection, The case laN in d