Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1878-03-15
Gen, Anderson's Case,

THIS morning w. p. Converse, Jr.,
foreman of the jury before which Gen.
Anderson was tried, published u long
letter in the Picdyu1ae, claiming the fair
ness of the working of the jury in that
case, and stating that the two colored
men, without reservation, assented to
the verdict of guilty. To-day the fol-
lowing was rendered the Picayune in re-
ply to that letter, but it was refused in
sertion in that paper. 1t is from one of
the two colored jurymen referred to by
Converse:
New ORLEANS La, March 2, 1878.
To the Editor of the Daily Picayune:
DEAR SIR--As one of the two colored
jurors impaneled to serve in the case of the
State against Thomas G. Anderson, beg leave
to differ with Mr.. W. p Converse, Jr., in his
statement to your paper OF even date regard
ing the above case. As matter of fact,
was summoned to serve as a talesmen in the
Superior Criminal Court of the parish, Judge
Whitaker presiding, and was sworn in to serve
in the case referred to. After having careful
ly listened to the witnesses and charge of the
Judge, had come to the conclusion that Gen.
Anderson was not guilty, and so expressed my
opinion at the time, the other cOlored juror
and Mr.. Welch agreed with me. Mr.. Herrick
ut that time stated that Gen. Anderson should
be sent to the Penitentiary fourteen years, and
therefore moved that he he found guilty. A
vote was tallen and we then stood nine for
guilty and three for not guilty Then some
one (I do not recolleCt the name of the Juror
moved to amend the majority motion and
recommend to the mercy of the Court. We
then inquired If that would send the General
to the Penitentiary. We were answered in
the negative, and upon that assurance we
agreed to the verdict, and should have known
that the verdict rendered would have assigned
Gen. Anderson to the State Penitentiary we
would not have agreed on said verdict.
Now, regarding the precaution ana eX-
tremely rigid regulations for the guarding of
the jurors from outside interference. "From
eight O'Clock Tuesday night, Jan. 80, till about
ten O'Clock Thursday night, the 9TH of Feb.
ruary, the twelve never separated. Two, and
sometimes three, Sheriffs officers always ac-
companied our movements We were not
permitted to speak to anyone except the Off
GERS, then only to supply necessary wants, and
they alone being allowed to approach us" is
correct, but where it goes on and says that al
night one room contained us, in which we
were securely locked and that our seclusion
from the outside world was indeed most com
plete | must say that that is not correct, anC
for this reason: We were visited by a Deputy
Sheriff, who was not in charge of the jury
almost every night up to the night that the
case was submitted to the court. He helC
several conversations with different juror:
separately, and even went so far as to show III
tricks with cards. On one occasion one of tht
jurors was lying on his mattress on the floor
when this deputy drew a chair alongside ol
him, and there held quite long conversation
He was the only deputy who ever entered oul
room unless we would knock on the door fol
some one. The gentleman also remarks that
" the disposition and capacity of the coloreC
members to receive and comprehend the pro
ceedings of the court were, ! think, fully VI
to what should naturally be expected from
persons of a race so lately accorded the i'm
portant privilege of BALLOT ! must say
that have been a free man all my life anC
have had the benefit of schooling as SUCH anC
had ] been rightly posted as to the verdic
that l have agreed to | would never have
rendered such verdict, because it is agains
my heart and conscience.
LEOPOLD L. MoNTPLAIsIR.
-NeW Orleans Telegram to NJ Y
Times.