The daily gazette., 1878-02-15
The Cery!stisn er Anders..

From the N. Y. SUM- !, T~grr~xrrs
The facts In the trial Of Anderson are
simple, and they were dearly establshed
BIZ the evidence. a. III I ~ 4AAl
The information was for uttering and
publishing ~ true, and with intent to in
Ijure and defraud, certain altered, false,
forged, and counterfeited public record,
knowing the same to be false, altered,
forged, and counterfeited. 'r .5.isT II
The parish Of Vernon embraces ten
election precincts. The votes Of these
eral statement called Q "Consohdated
Statement of the Votes OF the Parish of
Vernon" This is the document OF re-
cord alleged to have been forged, and to
have been published by Anderson with
the knowledge that it was false.
Section 8S3 Of the Revised Statutes Of
Louisiana Furnishes the uttering or pub
fishing as true of a forged record, with
the guilty knowledge and intent, in the
own hand Of the actual forgery. 1t en-
braces in the same clause the actual for
gerry, the aiding and assisting In 1t, and
the uttering and publishing as true of
the forged record. 1t deals with all these
forms Of forgery as II they were identi-
cally the same offence. 1t imposes as
the punishment on conviction, imprison-
ment for not less than two nor more than
fourteen years. '' A ,f'@.'N
The elements of the crime are three,
namely: The forgery of the record; the
knowledge that IL was a forged record
| and the utterance and publication of II al
true. All these elements are proved in
Anderson's case beyond the possibility OF
contradiction. They are proved by III
extraordinary affiuence and abundance
Of testimony. The fact of forgery was
proved by the production of the forged
document. Inspection of it and the tes
ltimony Of the experts concurred in show
ling that 1t had been altered, Thomas
Franklin, the Supervisor of Registration
who made out the consolidated state
lment, and who verified 1t by his oath al
q true and correct compilation, was ex
amined, and proved how the statemen
Originally was. Other witnesses, who
saw 1t when 1t was first opened, before i
was altered, were introduced In abund
ahce, and proved its original condition
The evidence on this point was SO over
iwhelming, that IL Is not necessary Il
Estate in here in detail. Moreover, n,
tdispute or question as to the fact of tn
forgery was raised at the trial. Indeed
tso indfsputable is the fact of the forgery
THAT Mr.. Sherman, the de facto Secretar,
of the Treasury, admits IL in his state
lment the day before yesterday, aud put
his defence of Anderson on an entirel,
different ground. He says: There wa
mo motive forsuch an alteration by An
lderson, the true return being printed IL
lso many forms that it was absurd to thin
| he would alter II; and yet upon this falls
lpretext he was convicted"
Next, the fact of .Andersen's guilt
knowledge was equally well established
II was proved that he was present in th
Returning Board when the return wa
lreceived and examined before IL was al
TERED. Tho true return Of th parish wa
1.-Two votes for the Republican elector
and six hundred and forty-seven for th
democratic electors. The alteration
consisted in transposing and reversin
the vote of two Of the ten districts. III
footings of the whole ten districts as 1
the true return, and the footings of thos
districts in the false return, are as 70
lows: ','''' '.D
| TRuF RRTuRN AITFREn RnrTrRN