Democratic Sentinel, Volume 1, Number 24, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 July 1877 — The Bargain and the Indictment. [ARTICLE]

The Bargain and the Indictment.

There is no concealment on the part of the Republicans that in recognizing Nicholls as the rightful Governor of Louisiana the Administration relied upon the resolution of the Nicholls Senate, made while the inquiry of the Commission was in progress, deprecating “any attempted persecution from any quarter, of Individuals for past political conduct.” Persecution they construe to mean prosecution, and political conduct, as they understand it, includes perjury! The Louisiana Senate pledged itself against persecution for political conduct; iiud mw we are gravely told that the indictment of oerfain public officers for perjury, is a violation of the Senate’s pledge! In the first place, the Senate had no jurisdiction over the prosecution of offences, and in the second place, according to the common understanding of the phrase political conduct, it would not cover t ic detestable crime of false swearing. It would seem, however, from our Republican coutsmnoraries.that Gov. Nicholls so understood it; for it is said that if the indicted members of the Returning Board are convicted, he will pardon them. He feels himself committed in good faith to do that. How committed? It can be only in one way. It can only be that he knew at the time that a false return was to be sworn to for the benefit of Mr. Hayes, that he connived at it in consideration of an agreement to recognize him as Governor. And now the proverbial honor among thieves is to bo scrupulously observed. The general sentiment of the 3ountry will be in favor of getting at the whole truth in this matter. If perjury, wilful and deliberate perjury, was committed by the Louisiana Returning Board, nothing else could be so wholesome in the premises as their conviction. The pardon promised by Gov. Nicholls, while it would destroy him, would not relieve them of the odium of their crime, nor would it diminishjthe bearing of the verdict on Mr. Hayes’ title to the office of President. At the same time the country will be very exacting in one thing, and that is that all the rights .of the accused shall be respected. Like every person charged with crime, they are entitled to the pi’esumption of innocence in their favor. If they are convicted, it must be on evidence which leaves no reasonable doubt of their guilt. In that event, that is, if if they shouid be thus convicted, it is difficult to see how Mr. Hayes could remain in office. Hence we see the great inducement the administration has to screen the alieged offenders. If innocent, we hope they will escape but if guilty, never.-N. Y. Sun.