Year: 1878




and publishing as true the forged an(
counterfeited Vernon parish election
returns, has overstepped the limits O.
propriety, by virulent attack on the
Supreme Court OF the State, Oh account
of it's decision on Anderson sappeal, ant
on the application by the Attorney Gen
eral for rehearing on that appeal.
The effort of the Democrat to faster
on the Supreme Court the responsibility
for AndersOn's escape from punishment
is alike unseemly and abortiye, and we
regret the attempt, first because it is
unwarranted, and secondly because il
is unbecoming the recognized organ OF
the democratic party of Louisiana.


The Democrat distinctly charges that
the decision on the appeal "was a poll
tical one" that it was an arbitrary
and insolent decision )" that it " seemed
so much in the nature Of q job that all
men were certain no reasoning could
avail with the court" This is serious
charge to make against the highestlegal
tribunal Of the State. If true, the five
Judges of the Court Gall cOncurred in
the decision) ought to be impeached,
and made no less infamous than the Re-
turning Board itself. IT not true, what
shall be said of the journal that dared
to make it?


The present Supreme Court of Louis
lana is composed of Judges whose repu-
tations for ability and judicial integrity
stand high throughout the State. 1t is
absolutely essential to the maintenance
of law and order that those regulations
shall not be unjustly tarnished because
if the court of last resort is a political
court; if it sanctions jobs; if it is inso-
Inr Il p1,i E in i,S,fa
shows a fixed and settled purpose to
strain the law and the authorities for
the great overruling purpose of releas-
ing an Infamous and convicted criminal,
then it follows as an inevitable result
that the injured and oppressed citizen,
instead Of appealing to the law for pro-
lection, will be impelled to turn away
from the temple of justice, and to seek,
by an appeal to brute force, to work out
his own salvation from the evils of op-
preston and crime.


In view Of the notorious fact that the
Ludeling Supreme Court oras a political
court; that its judges were avOWed Re-
publicans, who did not even deign to
strain the law and the authorities
when they stood in the way OF their
political purposes, but contemptuously
trampled them under foot; in view of
the fact that while the judges Of the
present Supreme Court are democrats,
there has been an abiding conviction on
the public mind ever since their ap
pointment that they would scorn to be
swayed by political or personal preju
dices, we fail to see what duty to the
democratic party of Louisiana it's ac
credited organ, the N. o. Democrat, per-
forms, in furnishing the republican party
with deadly weapon for an assault on
the judiciary department Of the demo
cratic State. government, by these public
and grave charges against the highest
court of the State.


In the decisions referred to it appears,
(and no one, not even the Democrat
disputes it,


: First: That there was serious blum
der in the framing of the information
against the accused, which resulted in
such variance between the information
support it, that the State was compelled,
after going into the trial by jury, and
on the trial, to ask leave ct the court to
amend its information, in order to open
the door to the admission of absolutely
necessary evidence to sustain it. Did
the Supreme Court draw up that in
formation


Secondly: That even after the infor
nation was so amended, the evidence
of the State, absolutely essential to a
legal conviction OF the prisoner, viz ::
the forged instrument which the infor-
nation, as amended, charged him with
having feloniously uttered and publish
ed as true, was fatally defective and
insufficient, and therefore legally in
admissible as evidence against the pris-
oner, because it lacked the certificate
of the clerk of the district court of Yer
non parish, which, by express law, was
necessary to give that Instrument any
legal value or authority whatever. Did
the Supreme Court ever see that docu
ment? Did it ever see copy of it, until
after Anderson's conviction, when it
came before it, embodied in the trans
cript of appeal? Did the Supreme Court
prepare the evidence on behalf of the
State, to be used On Anderson's trial
by jury, and did it compare that evil
dence with the law of the case, and see
if it was sufficient to maintain the Of
fenc charged


Thirdly: That the information, even
after being amended, charged Ander-
son and his co-defendants with having
feloniously uttured anG published as
true, the forged and counterfeited in
strument declared on in the informa-
tion, not in their capacity as officers of
the; law, (as members of the Returning
Board) nor in any other official capacity
whatever but so charged them simply
as Thomas C. AndersOn,J James Madison
Wells, ct alias; whereas it was apparent
that to sustain conviction under the
offence charged in the information, it
was essential that the offence (nOt for
gerry, nor counterfeiting-they were not
charged with that-but feloniously ut
tering and publishing as true forged
and counterfeited public fecord) should
have been charged as having been COM
mitted by them in their official capacity
asmembers OF the Returning Board !;
because as private individuals, not act
ing, nor protesting to act in any official
capacity, their nttering and publishing
asftrue forged and couhterfeited cleo
deceived, and could not have been cal
it being Of the essence of the offence
charged that the act of uttering and
publishing as true, q certain altered,
forged and counterfeit public record,
to-Wit: the consolidated return of the
parish of Vernon, made by the super
visor Of registration" should have been
committed with the intent to iniure or
deceive somebody. AS previously asked,
we inquire again, did the Supreme
Court draw up that information


The simple truth is, the reason and
the only reason why Thomas C. Ander-
son and his associates in the most in
famous and gigantic crime ever perpe-
trated against State and nation are
allowed to go unWhipped of Justice, is
because they were not properly charged
with the crime, and because on Ander-
sons trial there was a fatal variance
between an essential allegation in the