The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-02-12

whose letter Is published In to-day HERALD.
Judge Sutherland is an upright, experienced
and capable judge and his retirement from
the bench will be regretted. Nevertheless,
the constitutional provision seems to be
positive, and if there is any reasonable
doubt as to it's scope u judicial determina-
| ton should be reached without delay.
| The Returning Board Prcsecu lions
Is Secretary Sherman Mads
1t will not astonish the public to learn
that there is much excitement at Washing
ton over the startling course OF Secretary
Sherman with regard to the convicted
member of the Louisiana Returning Board.
| Several interviews in our Washington
reports will give the reader the
opinions entertained on both sides.
Among the many extraordinary things in
the politics OF the last year and half per-
haps the most extraordinary of all is the
attitude in which President Hayes Secretary
of the Treasury has put himself toward the
prosecution of the members of the notorious
Returning Board in Louisiana. What
greater violation could there be of official
decorum than for high officer of the fed
eral government to intrude his opinion In
IL criminal trial during its progress before
regularly constituted judicial tribunal in
State? BY what law or what usage Or
what principle OF proprety can the
strange course Of Secretary Sherman be
justified? BY what conceivable warrant
can he, q mere outsider, mere looker-on
from distance, assume to decide that q
legal prosecution in State court against n
man charged with felony is an outrage
upon justice? How did it become the
business of Secretary Sherman any more
than it is the business of any other citizen
of the United States who is not resident
of Louisiana? Since when did the admin
istration of justice in State fall under the
supervision Of federal Cabinet officer and
become subject to his review? What law
makes him an appellate tribunal to set
aside the verdict Of State jury and reverse
the judgme nt of State court =? While the
trial of Anderson was in progress Secretary
Sherman, Stanley Matthews, Mr.. Garfield
and other visiting statesmen" sent him
telegram declaring their belief in his inno-
cencc, telling him that he was falsely &C
cused and maliciously prosecuted" tender
ing him their earnest sympathies" and
deploring the 'srevival of sectional animos-
tiles" This was an unseemly and scandal
lous proceeding, even on the hypothesis that
Anderson is innocent. 1t was the express
sion of an opinion in advance of the trial
and -, ;oporo "a of tho avid apca RI ba ,,ra
sented in court But as if this gross breach
of decorum were not enough, Mr.. Sherman
publicly denounces the verdict and traduces
the judge after the trial is over There has
never been anything like it either in the his
tory of our politics or the history Of our
jurisprudence.
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that
Anderson is innocent and his trial malig-
nant political persecution, this wild ebul-
lition of angry feeling is none the less CEN
surable. TO asseverate that the jury was
packed and that the Judge is a scoundrel is
foolish and irrelevant and is quite beside the
mark. The only pertinent question is
whether the evidence justified the verdict.
Other people are as competent to judge Of
this as Secretary Sherman, and other in
telligent people are more likely to
be impartial It has been bruited
abroad (maliciously, no doubD that
Mr.. Sherman was an accomplice, and that
he and his associate visiting statesmen"
were also to be indicted. Under these cir
cumstances he is the last man in the coun-
try whom decent self-respect could have
permitted TO raise this wild outcry. The
inculpation Of the verdict and denuncation
of the Court should have been left to more
grace from man who is charged with hay
ing been pa,ticeps criminis in the frauds CON-
mitted by the Returning Board.
If the verdict against Anderson is not
justified by the evidence given on the trial
impartial men are com petent to judge of its
men who have no personal interest the
public will be more disposed to listen and
examine. If Anderson has been unjustly
convicted an impartial review of the evil
dence will make it apparent, and should
this be the judgment of disinterested
public he Will be relieved from the penalty.
1t is well known that Governor Nichols is
predisposed to pardon him if he can do so
on tenable grounds. Anderson is there
fore safe enough if he has been unjustly
condemned. The unseemly futtering Of
Secretary Sherman is rs unnecessary as it is
indecorous.
Parlng Down Non-Poiitica1 Salaries.
The Roor1 of E1ucofion veetordav after n