The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-02-13
IN TIE TOLLS OF JUSTICE.
CONVICTION or ANDERSON. TIE RE-
TURNING BO.iRD EORGER.
A Defence Mnd~ Up or rechnicniities -" The
Damned spot" TINT Would Not Outline
Judge. Charge and the Jury's Nsrdict-Am-
dcr.on stands silent. Pale, and Aghas.


II was some time after 10 o'clock when the
,ury in the case of the state agt. Anderson wero
brought down Mr. Castelanos opened the ar
cnmcnt for the.,lcicncc. Mr.. Castcanos spoke
for five hours and forty minutes After review
Ing the testimony for the defence. and COM
menting upon the weight that should be given
il. he entered upon the legal discussion of the
question as to whether the returns alleged To
have been forged were public records under the
law He cited many authorities going To show
that records Of this character were not public
records us the law contemplatcs. Referring to
old authorities in the English law. he enlarged
upon the injustice Of the charge. III an earnest
manner he called the attention 81 the jury TO the
fact that the element VI politics ought not TO en-
ter into the cnsc and he asked that the jury
should render their verdict simply upon the
evidence adduccd and the law ms given them by
the Judge. The effort OF Mr.. Castellunos was
marked throughout for its hrillancyand choice
rhetoric. and in case as hopeless rs was that
OF his client he made every point available that
was possible.
Al q o'clock he WAS followed hy Attorney
General Ogden. who made one OF the most cfec-
tive speeches he has ever made during his ca
rcer at the bar He showed that tho prisoner
was responsible for the acts OF his suhordinatcs
and that the publication was made knowingly.
with the consent of the accused. He referred TO
he fact that those who had testified on behalf al
the defendant had been employees Of the board.
aud connected closely with the parties VIII o had
been principals in the crime. He described the
functions Of the board, and what. under the
law they were entitled to do. and he asked the
Jury whether. with all the facts before them.
they could do clse than bring in verdict OF
guilty. lie said that It was FAR from his desire
h., 10 "A p,litigul Iin said TINT
he esked only justice at the hands Of the jury
and nothing else. II tho jurymen ARE satisfied
that the accused il guilty. then their verde 4
should be so; and If there was q reasonable
doubt, n verdict Of acquittal ought TO be- brought
in Tie Attorney General referred 10 the
damned spot upon the hand Of thc. prisoner
prrpetrated by this council could not be washed
10y the rains Of heaven. and not only Tor ne
time being, but for all time the stigma would
rest upon the guilty parties.
Taking up seriatim the testimony Of the wit
nesses. the Attorney General analyzed i care-
fully. and showed the character Of those Tor the
defence and those sworn for the state.
F,o~ n. N,v orleans D,n'-,al
The following is the charge of Judge Whit
The accused. Thos C. Anderson, is charged
with having. in the city Of New Orleans. on the
4th of December, 1876. falsely and feloniously
false forged. and counteriei,ed public record,
knowing the same tO be false. altered. forged.
nnd counterfeitcd. with intent to iniurc aud
soidated statement Of votes Of the parish OF
Vernon" the votes alluded to being the votes
east ia that parish fol. Presidents l electors at
the general election Of Nov. :. 1876. 80
The Information is based upon section ss3
OF the Revised Statutes of Louisiana. BY TINT
section it is provided that whoever shall pub
fish US true any false. altered. forged or coun-
!!erieited public record. knowing m same TO he
falso. altered. forged or coutcrfcited. with in
tent to inlure or detraud any person or any
body polite or corporate. shall. ON conviction
b" punished ny Imprisonment al hard labor for
not less than Two nor more than fourteen years
You have listened patiently 10 the evidence
you have paid due AT milton To- the arguments Of
counsel. II remains for the Court L. nnord you
instruction ms To the law applicable 10 the issue
Under the system OF Jurisprudence prevail nl
hut 1t Is presumed that the Jury Will heed III,
Instructions Of the Court rs g the law. although
1t Is beyond the control Of the Court us to tn,
making Of its verdict.
The attorneys for the defence have presented
several requests TO charge. The stat, has moi
rendered any such requests. The points pre-
scented by the defenc" are as follows:
TEcHNfcALiTy SOL.
We respectfully request the Court to charge
l. The accused being charged with havin.
falsly and feloniously uttered and publ shed a
true certain altered inlsg; i9rgrd ana e99 ,il
parish OF Vernon. Of an election held Tor Pr"-i
ientinl electors in the state 81 louisiana. on III
IN day OF November. A. ID. 1876, which altered
false. forged. and counter'eited public record !
charged TO have been III" original returns q
lent on the State to show that the SAID allcge
original returns of sail election. made by SAT-
supervisor Of registration. were made out II
strict conformity 20 the requirements Of the slut
ute prescribing the duties OF the registrars O
the parishes 81 this State.
2. That II the Jury find from an inspection o
the said return Of said election made boy SAT-
So b OF Isssrt99 and 6y tTsns
II was not authenticated and verified rs correc
by the certificate OF VIM. II. Smart, Clerk Of tn
District Court for the parish Of Vernon. wit
the seal OF his office thereto attached 1t l. NJ
nm ieia document. which rs such would form
the basis Of a forgery as charged in the bill q
s. That public record is n written .instru
ment made by public officer authorized 10y la'
o. perform that function. and Intended 10 serv
as evidence OF someth ng written said or done
That II the jury ma thnt the original return .
which purports and is charged 10 have bee
made by the supervisor OF registration for IN
parish Of Vernon Of the election Of said parist
which was held on the 7th Of November. 1876
does not bear upon IL the Off 1ial certificate {
VIM. H. Smart. Clerk Of the District Court
and arrested by the seal OF said court. it is not
public record In the sense OF and rs required b
law, and that Il would not be receivable in ev
dence OF anything written, said or done. an
therefore Is not basis Tor charge OF iorgeil
1. That il the Jury lind from the terms of n
law defining. prescribing, and regulating ~
duties OF the returning officers. they were n
CURED 10 constru" the law 10 receive. hear, an
compare evidence and testimony Of amy kim
and to decide thereon III any matter atleciin
the legality pi votes east, OF returns MAJ" th"fe'
hy the commissioners OF said election, SUI
functions are in their nature. judicial and thi
being performed under an oath Of Office. can
not be- inquired into IN this form oi proceeding
3. That The burden Of proof as t. the guil'
knowledge OF the accused u on the STATE
g. That III order 10 Justify the inference
Legal guilt from circum.tantial FACTS. they mu
he absolutely Incompatible with the innoren'
OF the accused and incapable of cXpianalio
upon any other reasonable hypothesis than TN
I. That il there be any reasonable doubt rs
the reality Of the connection OF the clrcun