The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1878-02-27
Was Gen, Anderson Tried Fairly :

convicted before a court and jury IL
New Orleans Of having taupereo
with election returns and faisiieo
them, the technical against him be
ing forgery. 1t is now said that his
trial was not fairly conducted Il
we believed 80, we would be frs
among the moremost to condemn it
Under no circumstances is an unfair
trial ever to be upheld or excused
1t is an injustice which no emergen
cy, no supposed necessity, either
justifes or palliates. .
But, thus far, we are unable to dis.
cover anything unfair in the trial Of
Anderson. The evidence against
him appeared to us very strong
while that in his favor was certainly
very weak. 1t is alleged that the
jury was packed; but there were two
colored men on it, and it was sup
posed that il there was the slightest
pretence for pronouncing him inno-
cent, they would stand out against a
conviction. .--<.
Judge Whitaker, who presided at
the trial, is alleged to be defaulter
to the Government of the United
States. If Whitaker is guilty, how
ever, it by no means follows that
Anderson is innocent. The ques-
ton whether Whitaker is guilty or
innocent could only be. determined
on a trial of Whitaker. 1t could
not possibly constitute an issue in
the trial of Anderson. 1t is said, in
fact, that a trial Of Whitaker, in
which this was the issue and the on
ly issue long since took place, and
that the jury acquitted him without
leaving their seats. At all events,
his alleged defalcation, the amount
of which is put at 5000, 900, is repre-
sented to have occurred in 1867,
eleven years ago; and if the Govern
ment has allowed such a claim and
such crime to remain unprecedented
all that length Of time, the fact ar
CUES most delinquent and disgrace
ful administration at Washington. :
The interposition in behalf af An
derson of John Sherman, Stanley
Matthews, Eugene Hale, Harry
White, and James A. Garfield is a
matter not only of personal import
ance to these parties, but of the
deepest political significance. Why
should they interfere? Such thing
is without precedent. They say they
believe Anderson is guiltless. The
time and place to have made that
appear was at his trial. 1t is, how.
ever, only an "unhssitating BELIEF
that they express. Beliefs are not
of much avail. nor are they of any
consequence in such matter. The
The sigusrs of the published letter
to Anderson do not pretend to any
knowledge, which is all they could
testify to; and If had any facts which
they had any facts which they knew
tending to show Anderson innocent
they should have been in New Or
leans while his trial was going on to
give evidence of them. We fear
these gentlemen who are now "nn.
hesitating" in their belief, have
sometimes been "unhesitating" when
it would have been better, not to say
safer, for them to have hesitated.
The letter signed by these gentle.
men goes on TO express to Gen. AD-
derson their hope that the people q
Louisiana will protect him, "and not
permit the best interests of the
whole country to be disturbed by a
revival of sectional animosities."
What does this mean? How are
sectional animosities to be stirred up
by the prosecution of man in Louis
lana, under the State laws, for the
crime of forgery, any more than b,
the prosecution of another man for
the same offence in the State of New
York? Such a thing can be possible
only upon the supposition that there
had been bargain or understanding
between certain Northern parties and
certain Southern parties, who profit
ed by the crime, that this particular
offender should go unwhipt Of justice
for this particular offence.
Fair trials are one thing; condona
ton ofthe crime that declared Hayes