Feliciana sentinel. [volume] (St. Francisville, La.) 1877-1892, 1878-03-30

CConti.xea from first page.1
made. But the court SCENE to admit
that certain Of these papers required to
be made by election officers are within
the statute. cannot see why the 9th
ers belonging - che sSme system and
required by the Same authorities are
not also. ex.-
Uponftl question as TO whether tho
document offered in evidence without
the slerlEs certificate was that charged
to hsveSbeen forged in the ipfcrnA tion,
there are two things to be said- ~
1. 1t was Because the paper described
IN the information was ssthe CONSOLE
dated statsment of votes of the super
visor of registration" and the paper Of
fered in evidence was the CONSOLIDATED
statement of the votes of the supt rvisor
ofrsgistration-" The clerks certificate,
although directed by the Law to be ap-
pended, is not of the substance Of this docu-
snent, but mere formal matter-a part
of the election machinery of the State,
and it's omission, while rendering the
clerk culpable, does not destroy the va
lidity of the record. -. ....
2. If this difficulty had been q real one
it could not justify the decision of the
court as rendered tho most the Court
could have done upon this ground was to
have remanded the case for a new trial.
The difficulty is not however, q real one
This Court has itself decided thai the
requirements of these election statutes
ale directory, and if this be true, how
can you hold hero that the absence Of
this formaltty so far changes the SUBJ
stance of this document as to make it in
admissible in evidence under the infor-
nation It seems to me, with all
due respect, that substance and shadow
are here badly COMPOUNDED by the couIt.
On the last point-the point discussed
in Mr.. Rays brief, which was fled with.
out q service upon US, and never seen by
us until after tho decision had been rem
dered, We cannot understand the posi-
ton of the court. The statute under
which this information was fled, says
"Vhoever shall publish a false, altered or
forged public record, etc. There is moth
ing said about its being published by an
officer in his official capacity. The Ian
gusge IS whoever, any person, who
shall publish" etc. Is not the word
whoever broad enough to cover this iris
oners Is not the prisoner at least
"whoeyer' But the court says this
particular offense, the publication of
election returns, could not have been
made 80 as to injure anyone except by
particular officers in their official capaci-
ty. Is that true? Evidently it is not,
tor suppose the messenger who carried
this document to the paper OF to the
publishers who published it, knew. that
this paper was forgery, inserted it,
having knowledge of tho fraud, would
they have been guilty or not guilty under
this statutes Clearly sthey would have
been as guilty rs the officers ,themseiy YES.
Then it is not necessary under this stat
ute that it should DO alleged in the in
formation that the ofense was commit
ted by aa. officer; it might have been
committed by a private individual, and
the indictment charges crime without
stating that the publication was made n
an Official capacity The Indictment is
sufficient then, on it's face; it does charge
a crime, and.this Court cannot arrest the
Judgment on that ground.
As a further illustration of this matter,
let us take the four bank presiden is re-
ferred.to in the opinion of this Court, and
suppose that they, in furtherance of some
financial scheme, had desired that the
result Of the last election should be
changed. Then let us suppose that they,
with the consent and assistance of their
several boards, had appropriated large
sum OF money to induce these officers of
the State to make the necessary altera-
tions in the figures, aud, that after these
alterations had been made and the result
changed, these four presidents had car
ried tho final compilations to the newspa-
per Office, and directed the publisher to
insert them, would these four presidents
of banksbe guilty or not guilty under
the statutes Manifestly every man con-
tributing to this fraudulent publication
is guilty, and the Indictment is not defect
i've on it's face because it fails to aver an
official capacity. There can be nothing
in this position, and I may be pardoned
the expression of an earnest hope that
this Court will not consent to remain on
record as having announced such a doc
trine. This case, from its great impor-
lance, must become leading one, not on
ly at home, but abroad. It is freighted
with the most important interests, both of
our State and country. Let it contain no
assertion of principle which canno be
defended by the candid jurist in every