The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-19
NOT GUILTY.
Decision Of the Supreme Court
in the Anderson Case.
A Forger Not Guilty Of Any Crime against
the State.

Yr
from which he has appealed.
The offense charged In the information is
that he did falsely and feioniousIy utter and
publish as true certain altered, false, forged
and counterfeited public record. to wit: The
returns from the parish Of Vernon OF an
election held for presidential electors, In the
State Of Louisiana, on the seventh day OF No
vember, 1876, as shown by the original returns
OF said election made by the supervisors OF
election for the parish OF Vernon, knowing the
same to be false, altered. forged and counter
feited, with intent to iniure and defraud, etc.
The case came up upon numerous bills OF
exception and assignments OF errors. We
shall eonfine our examination to such OF them
only as are necessary to the decision OF the
issue presented to us.
The prosecution was commenced by an In
formation filed by the District Attorney for
the parish OF Orleans, and it Ia objected on be-
half Of the prisoner that the filing OF an in
formation is not allowable because--first,
there has never been q preliminary examina-
tion Of any specific charge against him, and
that he did not waive such examination, and
has not had an opportunity Of meeting the
witnesses against him and OF cross-examining
them; second, there has not been any finding
by an examining officer that the offense
charged has been committed, nor any adjudt-
cation by such officer that the prisoner was
guilty thereof; third, the information filed ID
a fragrant violation Of section 1910 Revised
Statutes Of 1870.
That section merely provides how prelim-
mary examinations before committing maggie
trates shall be conducted, and is much the
same as the statute Of other States upon that
subject.
The objections are not well founded. 1T has
never been supposed that q preliminary ex-
animation by q committing magistrate was
an Indispensable precursor to a prosecution,
either by indictment or information. One OF
the counsel for the prisoner argued orally a
very different objection. viz: that as our GRIM
inal mode OF procedure was as at common
law, and informations could not be filed with
out leave Of the Queens Bench, which was
granted only ON proper afildayits, therefore
an information cannot be filed here unless d
similar course is pursued.
In England there are two classes OF inform
atoms s-government informations and those
emanating from private individuals. THERE'S
no local officer there whose duties were the
same as those Of district attorneys IL ttstsa
States of this country, or solicitors, as they are
called tn some Of them. That Office liz the ere
alton Of the American system. The Attorney
General OF England filed informations on be-
half OF the government ez oDscto, but others
were filed at the instigation OF private indi-
viduals, and by counsel on their behalf, and
though the prosecution is in the name Of the
sovereign, these individuals who provoked it
were mulcted in costs II 1t failed. BY the
common law it was In the power
OF any individual to file an information with
out disclosing to the court the grounds
on which it was exhibited. Chitty Grim.
Law, s5s. The frequent exercise of this
power by private individuals from motives of
malice Or private revenge provoked the stat
ute and W. and NJ, by which private indi-
viduals were henceforth prohibited from filing
informations without the consent of the
Kings Bench.
There was reason, therefore, for requiring
In England an information to be supported by
before permission to file it would
be given, that does not exist here. No one
can file an information here but the law
officer. The public prosecutor, by whatever
he may be known, is the only per-
son who can initiate criminal proceeding In
that way, and as he liz acting under the sane
ton and responsibility Of his Office the same
restrictions are notimposed upon him as were
wisely imposed by the statute of William and
Mary, which changed the common law on that
subject.
II the Attorney General OF England were
now to offer to file an information In the
Court OF Queens Bench, he would not be re- i
quired to accompany it with affidayits;
while, ii offered by private person, through
his counsel (for he cannot do it In perSon),
the court requires to be informed olisande
IL there is reasonable ground for ii. Chitty.
G. L., $50. Nevertheless, our statute still re-
quires that the consent Of the court shall first
be obtained, and in practice there at least 1T
ls granted as matter OF course.
Every constitution Of this State has con-
tained the provision that prosecutions shall
be by indictment or information. Our statute
the latter to offenses not capital, and
requires the consent OF the court to be first
but that being done, and there is
no mode prescribed for obtaining it, the pros
ecution by information has never been doubted
TO he OF equal validity under our law with
that OF indictment for any offense not capital.
1t was very early held here that the amend
ment to the Federal constitution, which re-
4uires the Intervention of grand jury,
relates only to crimes cognizable by the
United States courts, and to criminal pro-
ceedings in those courts. Territory Vs. Hat
tick, Mart. ss ] Andin 1s59a case was brought
up wherein the Grand Jury had ignored
bill for manslaughter, and Immediately there
after, on the same day, the district attorney
filed an information charging the defendant
with that offense. A motion to quash, on the
ground that the Grand Jury had ignored the
bill against the same party for the same Of
fense, was sustained by the lower court, and