The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1878-02-22
OUGHT AnDERsos roBE rARDosEDs

OUGHT ANDERSON TOBR HAROONRD3
Ought scJsas did you say.
Ought Gen. +. G. Anderson, men,
Der Of the late Returning Board and
now under conviction for utterins a
forged document, to be pardoned by
the Governor Of Louisiana
We say no land we will undertake
to give ono or two reasons,for the res
p0nse.
The crime OF forgery Is a very seri-
GUS one, and the commission of the
crime is severely punished, and pro
perly SO, because 1t Is easily commit
ted and yet very destructive to the In
tefests OF trade and the rights of indi-
viduals. It Is one Of the most danger
GUS a. well as one Of the meanest OF
felonles. Not alone the laws denun-
citation makes it \ crime to be Stunned,
but It is made tlide0ls by the common
and universal lawof society. No indi-
vidual found guilty Of forgery is ever
afterwards trusted. Men avoid. him Ms
one stricken with leprosy. Such il
the result even in ordinary cases where
the offender simply f0rges q five-dollar
due bill. AS remarked by Attorney
General Ogden, "the damned spot
will never out.
Gen. Anderson was tried and con-
victed, not Of forgery, but of uttering
certificate OF public record knowing
1t had been f,rged-the election re-
turns Of Vernon parish. He went to
trial with aJury Of his own selection,
not having exhausted his challenges.
He had able counsel, long and
patient hearing, a judge whose rulings
and charge to the jury evinced great
fairness, and all the evidence he could
gather, after several months notice OF
trial. The jury was divided both as tu
politics and to color-four Republicans
and two coloretl men. being on the,
jury. The arguments were lengthy,
able and exhaustive, and the delibera-
tions Of the jury not at all hasty.
What was the vertlictf sGuilty;"
OF the court.
Guilty of what: Guilty, not of forg.
cry, but of utteriBg-of endorsing and
circulating-a forged document, know
ing 1t was forged. The forgery, the
guilty knowledge and the uttering
were all proven, so say the jury. So,
he must have deliberated upon the &C,
of forgery, sanctioned it (ifhe did
not authorize it) and then, with
most malicious purpose, to-wit: the
robbery Of the people Of their. liberties,
deliberately published the paper as his
own.
While Gen. Anderson's trial pro-
gressed we thought it. improper even
to recall the circumstances which sur
rounded the commission of the ofiense
of which he has been found guilty, but
the subject of his pardon must recall to
every ones mind the arbitrary pro.
ceedings of the Board of which he was
a member, and the rude, insulting
treatment received by their political
opponents ut the hands of the Board.
1t seemed their studious purpose to
drive citizens Of the State from their
presence. Whether they meditated
treason to the elective franchise, or
simply the avoidance of scrutiny, was
not then plain to be seen. Insults were
heaped upon citizens who volunteered
u duty to the State, namely, the verifi-
cation of the correctness of the Return.
ing Boards returns. How these citi-
zens, maintaining their dignity and
self-respect, were ablo to withstand
these multiplied insults, was u mystery
to the whole country.
Now what was the purpose of this
course of conduct on the part of Wells
aud Anderson? No two honest men,
sworn to discharge honestly public
duty, would have avoided public scru-
tiny of their proceedings rather, they
would have thrown wide open the
doors of their chamber and invited the
whole city of New Orleans to witness
the Justice and fairness of their acts.
Their purpose was dishonest and GRIM
inar their acts, at that very time, have
been adjudged, jadictally, to have
been felonious, and the crime they