The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-03-27
THE RETURNING BOARD TRIALS.

the State entirely by surprise, and
has been the occasion of much cha
grin that so great fraud should 60
unpunished, as well as Of keen disap-
poibtmebt tAat prosecution from
which they had hoped so much
should have such an end. Indeed,
the result was so unexpected, that
when the announcement was first
made, that the decision of the Su-
preme Court had not only gone to
tie extent of granting Anderson a
new trial, which was thought to be
the limit to which they could go, but
had at once and etfectually quashed
all proceedings in the case, the muir
murings were loud and deep, and ex-
pressions Of discomfort and even of
harsh criticism, were heard on all
sides, and our exchanges came to US
teeming with protests.
It would be much worse misfor-
tune than the escape of the members
ofthe Returning Board from the pun
ishment they have so richly merited,
for the people of this State to lose
confidence in either the integrity or
ability of their Court of last resort,
and we cannot allow the opportunity
TO pass without saying that the mem
hers of that Court, are worthy of all
our confidence, and are all gentlemen
who in the trying times through
which we have passed, have proved
their devotion to the cause of the
people, and who have made no little
personal sacrifices in their efforts to-
promote the best interests of the
State. The fault seems to be not
theirs, but bungling election law,
which was intended to encourage
fraud, and is full of just such loop
holes as that out of which Anderson
has just crawled.
The charge against him was at first
of forging and uttering as true, the
"original returns Of the election in
Vernon Parsll;" but when the State
came TO introduce the forged docu-
ment, it was found that it was not
the original returns made by the com
missioners of election, but "consol
idated statement" made by the Su.
pervisor from the returns of the
Commissioner of Election, and the
information was amended according
lily. This last document, the Su
preme Court decides not to be sub
iect to forgery, inasmuch as the law
requires the Returning Board to can
vass the votes, and make up the re-
suit from the returns of the Com.
missioners at each poll, and not from
the consolidated statement" made
by the Supervisors. 1t is neverthe.
less true that the Returning Board
made up the result in this as in all
other cases from the Consolidated
Statements, and never used the Com.
missioner's returns except in cases
of dispute as to the vote at any poll
They considered it necessary to forge
and alter the Consolidated Statement
and having forged and altered it 81
as to show change of one hundred
and seventy-nine votes, they pointed
to the forged document as evidence o.
the verify of their count. 1t il
strange, as we have already seer
urged in ore of our exchanges, tina
to forge an order for twenty five cents
should and would send criminal tt
the Penitentiary, while there is nj
law 10 punish criminal for forging
the result Of an election and swim
ding the people out of their will a:
expressed at the ballot-box. Th,
Court says it could do no harm, ant
probably in contemplation Of the law
it could not, but in fact it did de
harm, and people not versed in thu
intricacies of the law, are apt to Lhinl
itquihbling to allow the perpetrator'
of the crime to 60 scot free ate
having committed it, When it ii
remembered that the Electoral Com
mission counted the vote of LOuisi
ana for Hayes upon the pretext tina
it could not go behind the returns
and that if the Returning Board off
GERS had altered and forged the re
. turns, they must be prosecuted in th
State Courts for the crime, it make
it all the more difficult for US to b
reconciled to their escape from pun
ishment, with the christian fortitud
with which we are taught to bear GU
mlsfortunes.
We are consoled somewhat by tn