The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-01
TOM ANDERSON.
srnE DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT.

the DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT.
Editor Demorat-In properly ordered go
raety the citizen bows to the decisions OF the
urope v constituted courts of law and justice.
Born and reared in an atmosphere Of lawyers;
accustomed from earliest youth to hear the
appellation Judge" defined to mean all that
was learned, refined and strictly impartial, /
have no words to express the regret feel at
finding myself impelled by a sense OF duty to
record my humble disapproval OF the decision
Of our Supreme Court In the case Of Thomas
q. Anderson. To bow before the decision Of a
court Ii not necessarily to acquiesce In the
same. When 1t comes to that then we have
surrendered the privilege Of reasoning.
have read over and over again this deci-
SaOn or our court; i have talked the matter
over with reasonable and reasoning men, and
the moreI read and talk the more fully am
convinced that 1t has less of real solid founda-
don to stand upon than ever was known be-
tore. In fact, there is no foundation, and the
decision does not stand up at all; 1t Ia simply
held up In mid-air by the frail threads OF
legal technicallty and hair-splitting.
Knowing nothing Of law as q lawyer, ought
70 have grave doubts OF any opinions I might
entertain, but the able argument of the Attor-
ney General for q rehearing, and the known
opinions OF some OF the wisest lawyers OF Our
State 80 sustain me In the conviction l have
entertained from the beginning that l feel
there Is sort OF duty In giving express
aIon to that dissent which 80 largely per-
vades society.
The Supreme Court has decided:
/. That the law directs that the Returning
Board shall canvass and compile 'the state
mentB Of the commissioners OF election" and
not the consolidated statements Of the super
Wilson's Of registration; that the document
offered In evidence as forged is consolidated
statement Of supervisor of registration,
Ind, consequently, there has been no forgery.
They treat such consolidated staten eEts as
] Uf no Uat1e Whdteuer under the law, and go 80
1ar as to say that, III the supervisors OF reg
jstration Of every parish In the State should
81 votes made by each one respectively, and
transmit them, thus altered and forged, to
the returning officers. and those officers
should canvass and compile the votes, as the
statute requires, not from those consolidated
statements, but from the unaltered commits
siOners returns no injury would be suffered
BY any Individual or by the body polite"
Now, 1t is necessary for the reader to know
arc, In order to be at all able to reason clearly
On this important point.
The supervisors OF registration are officers
r1Rularly appointed by the Executive, to es-
vote at the election to be held, and issue all
registration papers to voters. Certainly, this
e most important position, and this one
junction defines the man holding 1t as q most
functions Of this officer extend much farther;
ne appoints the commissioners Of election In
his parish except In the parish of Orleans.
Again, the commissioners Of election are
not only required to furnish list Of the cleo
ti0n to the clerk Of the district court but
duplicate list also to the supervisors Of regis
fratiOn.
Again: ut shall be the duty of the supervi-
BOTS Of registration. within twenty-four hours
after the receipt Of all the returns of the
II different polling places. to consolidate such
returns, to be certified as correct by the clerk
Ut the district court, and forward the con-
Solidated returns with the originals received
In section two Of this act" That Is, to the So
called Returning Board"
Again, supervisors OF registration are au-
thorized to close all drinking saloons Of every
description on election day. lSee VOORHEES,
The manner in which the law ties those two
functtOnarieS -commiSsioners of election and
supervisors Of registration together is re-
markable, and tits point OF thedeepest con-
preme Court The common opinion Is that
the functions Of the supervisor Of registration
cease with his making UP his LIST of voters
and issuing certificates of registration; but
tnis is not true, as have shown. This super
visor absolutely becomes an officer OF cleo
ton as well, as Is seen above Aye, more
than this; he absolutely creates the commits
s6Oney. Of election and this functionary must
furnish him with copy Of his returns, as he
does the clerk Of court.
To my mind, then, 1t lis incomprehensible
how the Supreme Court can belittle, or even
eschew. the supervisor OF registration, as 1t
does. This officer has clearly been orderedby
the law, not merely for purposes Of registra-
lion, but his functions extend into the matter
Of elections, as he is required to close drink
ing saloons and preserve order, is required to
create the commissioners of election, and then
Is required to receive their official returns to
consolidate them, to have the consolidated
statement certified by the clerk of the court,
ana tnen TO forward the com missioners' re-
turns and his consolidated statement to the
Returning Board under careful SEAL
Can It be possible that the law requires all
this Of q supervisor of registration, and
means nothing by 1t? Or Is it not clear that
me whole order OF proceeding goes to show
or balance in the proceedings? Does he not
stand In the important light of an official cor
r0borator OF the commissioners report? Can
ne be regarded as q mere fgurehead when
OFFICIALLY clothed with such functions? If 80,
then the law creating him stands without
parallel among statutes "a law creating a
public functionary clothing him with high
authority, demanding Of him the perform
nnce OF important duties, and yet meaning
nothing whatsoever!
The Supreme Court 60 on to say:
The supervisors consolidated statement is
not made by the statute the basis Of the final
canvass and compilation of the vote, as the
original returns of the commissioners are,
and hence the alteration and forgery Of all OF
chem, the returns of the commissioners yp-
manning unahered II italicise these wordsl,
would not change the result OF .he election in
any parish"
Now this is very important sentence in
this remarkable decision
If the returns of the commissioners remain
MaGttered, then the consolidated statements
are worthless. say the court. But what if the
returns OF the commissioners Were altered?