The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-04-10


rected to be made by the Legislature,
to be certified by officers of the State.
and to be carefully sealed up with the
other papers, and sent to the officers of
the State who have duties to perform.
This paper is evidence that the com.
missioners Of election have transmitted
to the supervisors returns as required
by law. 1t is evidence that the officer
1.-THE elerk) within a short period has
examined these returns, and ascer-
tanned the result to which lie certifies.' =
The clerk has never certified to the
one on which tins prosecution is based,
and no one else is required to do it,
and so, further on it is argued, "that
the clerks certificate, although direct
ed by the law to be appended, is not of
the substance of this document, but
mere formal matter-a part of the cleo
ton machinery Of the State, and its
omission, while rendering the clerk
culpable, does not destroy the validity
of the record" 1t is not our concern
to reconcile the admission that the pa
per is evidence that the clerk, within
a short period, has examined the re-
turns, with the assertion that his GER
tltcate to the correctness, and to his
ascertainment of the result, is a mere
formal matter--or, in other words, that
it means nothing. But some of the re-
quirements of election statutes are
merely directory, and, being 80, the
question is asked how can it be held
that the absence of this formaIity 1.-THE
clerks certificate) SO far changes the
substance of this document as to make
it inadmissible in evidence under the
information. There is no question of
change of substance of document
because Of the absence of formality,
if, indeed, sncl, thing be public, nor
is there any question of the effect pro-
duced np0n the result of an election
by the failure to observe certain direc.
tons, as to which the universal rule of
construction is, that election statutes
are to be construed literally and to ia
vOr the right ascertainment of the vote
cast, while criminal statutes are, by a
rule equally universal, to be construed
strictly 10 favor of the party accused.
The actual and vital question here is,
having prosecuted the prisoner for al
tering as forged particular statutory
instrument, has the State shown that
he did utter as forged that Instrument
The State has not shown it. 1t may
have shown that the prisoner altered
as forged another and a different in
stfament, but the decisions of all
courts come down to rs in an unbrO-
ken line of authority, that convic
ton cannot be sustained under such
charge, supported only by such proof.
1t is also argued: SIT is not sufficient
to say that the supervisors return was
not the paper that the members of the
Returning Board were to principally
consider, or that it was not the best
evidence. The paper was used, and
the paper was f'anduIently altered and
faIsifed, that it might impose upon
the public. The paper was success
fully used. If this was used in con-
nection with other papers to produce a
fraudulent result in their count, and
they returned upon is evidence aud
frruaa If far hot pnrm,oa II r,,l,o, n
case Of forgery" The prisoner was
not rosecnted for that crime. He was
not charged with forging that paper,
ar any paper for any purpose. One
man may fOrge paper and another
may utter it az forged. The crimes
are distinct, til" acts are distinct. Su
far from s"pposiug it was sufficient tn
say that tue supervisors return was
the paper that the returning officers
were principally to consider, or That it
was tie best evidence, we said, as the
statute says, it was not to he consider
ed at all, and that it was not made by
| the statute any evidence whatever OF
the actual vote cast. 1t was not the
paper nor one of the papers which the
returning officers were to canvass in
making their compilation of the vote
Upon that the directions of the statute
are explicit. Whether in tho absence
or loss of the commissioners' returns
it would not be receivable ia All cleo.
ton contest as secondary evidence o
the vote cast, or even as good as the
best evidence, 10 matter of inquiry
not revelant to the criminal proceed
ings. And it must be evident that We
cannot know "a court, and in a case
" there we have jurisdiction only of the
legal questions, that the defendant and
his o-members of the Returning Bnart
did in fact make up their compilation
from the supervisors return, aud sue
cessfully used them to produce frau.
dulent result. sThat is matter Of
fact wholly outside OF the record, anG
If it had been in tho record could moi
he taken into account by Us in decid
ing a naked question of law. 81 can
not understand the argument" con
tinued the attorney General, "tl.a
proDounces nullity an official paper
| when TIE sCatHte uitectS SlaiI ne maze
and placed in the hands of public off
GERS, and being of no value or efficacy
may be altered, forged and falsitiet
with impuuity." Nor can we But al
acquaintance with the rules governin!
criminal prosecutions will enable one
readily to understand that when &
person is charged with uttertng al
forged a particular instrument, he can
not b. convicted and punished for for
cling another and different instrument
So, further on, apparently forgettin,
what the charge is in ttis case, ant
misrea ding the records of the statute
he argues deliberately to prove wha
no one will even dispute, viz: tina
| whnayer may be guilty Of forging