The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-07
AN INNOCENT FELON.

by the decision Of the Supreme Court releas
ing the convicted felon, Tom Anderson, or tn
chagrtn and regret which overcame then
when the court refused the State rehearing
No event in the last ten eventful and sorrow
full years OF misruIe, political debauchery
bargaining and trickery can Justly be re
garded as 80 great q calamity to Louisiana al
: this decision. Every observing man mus
already see that 1t has impaired the confidence
OF the people In the Supreme Court and taught
! them to mock at the administration of Justice
and speak with derision and contempt of the
| laws. II it be true that the court is right
and that 1t decided in accordance with the let,
ter and spirit OF the law, then it must be con.
sidered the most unfortunate court that ever
sat upon case in which the honor and in.
terests OF great country were concerned
The prisoner had successfully perpetrated a
great crime against the laws Of the State; he
was convicted of the crime after fair and
impartial trial by jury; he was sentenced
by learned and just judge, who had heard
all the evidence and all the arguments; the
fact OF the crime was fully proved,
and it had been completely sue
cessful; the whole country felt.
suffered and writhed under it, and knew, not
morally alone, but actually, that the accused
was guilty; and the Supreme Court reversed
the verdict OF the jury and the sentence OF the
Judge, and released him, and in releasing him
declared, itself, that he was malefactor. Is it
astonishing that public sentiment refuses to
indorse this action Of the Supreme Court or to
believe that the mass of technicalities,
sophistry and special pleading that tribunal
has skilfully woven into a hgh-sounding de-
cision, constitute the law OF the land? If the
court has the law with it, it has the great
mass Of the people against it. and therefore
we repeat, 1t is the most unfortunate OF courts
But it is not only the technicalities upon
which the court has relied to bring about
80 extraordinary result as the re-
lease Of Tom Anderson that offend the
public sense OF right and infame the
public mind with the belief that the
court has refused the country justice.
These were indeed sufficient for that purpose:
for the untutored mind cannot comprehend
the justice which sets free felon, the evil
dences Of whose crime are among the graves
Of the people and the ruins OF State, in the
debasement Of the Presidency and In the
knowledge and on the lips of almost every
If the court had adhered strictly to these tech
nicalities and reasoned logically and fairly
from them, it's partisans and those OF the
felon could have based their defense OF
the decision upon consistent grounds But
when we find that, in the decision re-
fusing the State O rehearing, the court
has given SO little attention to the very
able and irrefutable brief Of the Attorney
General that it has actually (of course we I'M
derstand, through inadvertence) misquoted
that officers language, and based on that
misquotation a sarcasm and an argument, we
are certain no power can convince the people
that the court has enunciated sound law
The misquotation Of the Attorney Generals
printed brief to which we refer is, we believe,
the most extraordinary case in the history of I
and when we have pointed it
out 1t will leave the decision without the hope (
Of redemption In the opinion of the country.
The Chief Justice says SIN the brief before
us 1.-THE Attorney General'sl it is said
"The paper prepared by the supervisors of ,
directed to be made by the Legislature, to be
certified by officers OF the State, and to be
carefully sealed up with other papers, and {
sent to other. officers Of the State who have 1
i Tut to perform. This paper is evidence g
that the commissioners Of election have (
transmitted to the supervisor returns as re-
Iuired by law. 1t Is evidence that the officer
the cterk) within short period has exam 4
ned these returns, and ascertained tie result
% which he certifes." =
Jerk had never certified to the one on which n
his prosecution is based, and no one else is re- 2
luired to do it, and SO further on it is argued"
by the Attorney Generall-
That the clerks certificate although direct .
"a by the law to be appended, is not Of the
of this document but a mere for
nal matter-a part of the election machinery a
i the State, and its omission, while rendering a
he clerk culpable does not destroy the valid
ty OF the record. fl
I'VE call special attention to the words sthe s
'fficer (the clerk)," italicised by us in the .
lrst quotation from the Attorney Generals J
riefl a
Having in the above quotation and COM >
nsnt involved the Attorney General in an o
bsurd position, the Chief Justice continues in d
his sarcastic vein:
1t Is not our concern to reconcile the ad- q
Mission that theopaper is evidence that the :.
Jerk, within short period, has examined the a
eturns, with the assertion that his certificate
9 their correctness, and to his ascertainment
the result, is mere formal matter-or in o
Their words, that it means nothing.
Now, by reference to the printed brief of :.
he law officer of the State the reader will at :"
nee see that the words, 'the officer 1.-THE m
lerkl. quoted by the court as the utterance of L
he Attorney General are in fact the compo-
ton Of the court itself and change the entire "
ense of the brief. "The officer 1.-THE clerk"
re words substituted by the court for the :,
ords this officer" written by the Attorney Il
eneral and clearly printed in his brief. We
DIV give the two extracts as they appear in Z
Re brief, and the public will see how great a OF
florence this little alteration by the court "
axes and how utterly pointless would have "
aen the SarnsSp, NJ tho Chiof Juctioo bad ~