Year: 1878

1n0 decision OF tho supreme COuft
Monday, on the application for q re-hear-
ing in the case of Thomas c. Anderson,
brings to close the prosecutions institu-
ted against the late Board of Ruturning
Officers. The application for re-hear-
ing was refused. This refusal terminated
the case against Mr.. Anderson, and his
release follows as a ma tier of course. The
other cases will be disposed of according
to this precedent. They will never he
brought to trial. It becomes the duty of
the judge to release the prisoners in ac-
cordsnce with the rulings of the Supreme
Court. This will, we presume, be done
at once, and Wells and his two colleagues
will 60 forth free from the fear Of punish
ment. We believe that it was shown by
the evidence ON the trial of Anderson
that the commissioner returns from
Vernon parish were altered to correspond
statement which was made the basis Of
the information. 1t was not shown, we
think, that Anderson hid anything to do
with this alteration of the commissioners
returns, but we presume that there would
have been no difficulty in>dxing the act
on Wells. The testimony given before
the Field committee, at Washington,
would have been sufficient, if it could
have been produced. But the informa-
tion charged an alteration ot the Super
visor's consolidated statement, which, in
the opinion of the Supreme Court, is not
an official record Of the election, and tot
the alteration of the commissioners re-
turns, which are in the opinion of the
court the official record of the election
known to the law. The Supreme Court,
in their opinion given yesterday, also
make the point that even had the Super
visor's statement been tho proper official
record, in this case it lacked the essen
tial character of an official document, in
consequence of the absence of the attest
alton and seal OF tho clerk of the court.
For the full statement of tho reasons for
which the cOnrt maintain their opinion
~ previously given, wo refer the readers
to the full text Of the decision as publish
cd in this weeks Picayunc.


And now, we presume, however deeply
the public mag be disappointed in the
result Of these proceedings, there will be
no disposition to question the propriety
of the conclusions arrived at by the Su-
prene Couat, regarding them as purely
legal deductions from purely legal prin-
ciples. The court has, doubtless, cor
rectly expounded the law With this
we must be satisfied And, after all, the
great crime that was committed was not
the mere alteration of IL paper. Such an
act is a vulgar otfepse which sends many
Il man to the Penitentiary without arous-
ing against him tho resentment and ha-
tired of tho public The great crime and
the real crime was in the Justification of
tho vote Of the State, by whatsoever
means accomplished and for this crime
the law provides no penalty, possibly be-
cause it is in character SO mOnstrOus and
inconccivahle rs not to be considered
For rtunately, in The future, no such crime
can be repeated in this State. The law
which made it possible has been repeal
ed the board of officials who might re-
peat it has been abolished, and the party
which invented it, and profited by it, has
been dissolved. For these results we
may be thankful without casting unde-
served censure on our Supreme Court,
and thereby impairing that confidence in
the judiciary, which is one Of the strong
est suppo; is of social order and public
liberty.-N. O. Picayune.





RESUMPTION.