New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1852-09-25

25. 1852.
mere local position, but to promote the ends @
public justice
| Mr.. WADDnL was in favor Of the amendmen
offered by the delegate from Concordia to strik
out the words adjoining district" He tool
TINS ground because experience had shown hin
the propriety Of it, He did not consider thai
TINS would be any restriction Of the right.
OF the people. 1t would only be marking
more satisfactorily the lines within which theiI
choice lay. If we do not confne the choice o
ofhcers to the district, there is no objection tc
our going over the State line, and selecting a
Judge from Mississippi or Alabama, when we
happen to believe that certain lawyer in either
OF these States is better qualified than those who
are candidates in our own State
MIR. PARHAN, in reference to the remark made
by Mr.. benjamin, that the insertion of this
clause had been the result of compromise in
the Convention Of 1845, was reminded that at
the time of the sitting of that Convention, much
Ill feeling existed throughout the State on ac-
count OF the disregard that had been paid to the
wishes OF the people in the appointment of Judges
and District Attorneys by the Governor. But
now things are to be changed, and the people
themselves are to be the appointing power, and
he agreed with the delegate from NewOrleans
Mr. Roselius, that Young America ought not to
blow hot and cold in the same breath The
people are now to get what they have been long
wanting, and the only questions to be asked are
is lie honest-is he capable' That position has
been correctly given by Mr.. Roselius, and he
(Nlr. P.) only regretted that Young America
had not the weight Of that gcntlemans iudg-
ment on his side all the time. Let us 6aEe
away the restriction, and leave the people un-
limited in their selection.
Mr.. HERRoN said, that in order to show that
he was in favor Of taking away restrictions
both yesterday and to-day, he would move that
all after the first four lines of the article be
stricken out. This would make the article stand
thus
All civil officers for the State at large shall
reside within the State, and all district or
parish officers within their districts or parishes
and shall keep their offices at such places therein
as may be required by law
Which amendment prevailed.
FORFEITURE OF RESIDENCE
Ct Article 9S. Absence on the business of this
State, or Of the United States, shall not forfeit
residence once obtained, so as to deprive any
one Of the right Of suffrage, or of being elected
or appointed to any office, under the exceptions
contained in this Constitution
MIR. GuIoN offered to amend the article by ad.
ding after the words, &c United States,' the fol-
lowing words: cor on visit or private busi.
ness
Mr.. GuIoN, in support of the amendment, re.
marked that the forfeiture of residence was
very grave consideration, and ought not to be
incurred, unless where the party shall have
shown an indisposition to retain it,
Mr. DUFouR suggested that the gentleman
from Lafourche should state in his amendment
the length of absence. A gentleman might be
absent on temporary visit year. Would moi
that lose residence Undoubtedly He would
remind the Convention that absenteeism is one
of the greatest evils under which our State la.
bors and we ought to provide against it in the
fundamental law.
Mr.. Gu1oN said that he could not take a
limited view of this question He believed that
this was an important point, in which the rights
and interests of the citizen demanded protection
Travel was one of the best means of education
and ought not to be restricted or visited with
any forfeiture. Fathers of families frequently
felt it their duty to travel, as protection te
members of their families. Sons were eager tc
travel, in their desire to see the world and in.
crease their stock of knowledge and information
But wherever they went, their home was still
the sacred spot on earth to them. Should the,
be restrained by the fear of loss of residence
He thought that the most simple statemen
would suffice to show the injustice of such
thing.
Mr.. BENJAMIN moved to strike out the articl
altogether. 1t could never have been contem
plated in the brain of any human being, tha
man should forfeit his residence bv alb
sence on the business of this State or of th
United States; neither was it ever intended tha
citizen should forfeit his residence by tenn.
porary visit. We struck article II out ol
the Constitution to leave the Legislature to act
on this subject and this article ought to be dis
posed of in the same way. By article IL, it is
apparently clear that if man chooses to spend
a summer across the Lake. or at the North, with
his family, he forfeits his residence; whereas.
we know that it is no such thing This is
the way in which mere legislation frequently
engenders disputes. An article such as that.
which means nothing and has no tendency
but to confuse, ought not to be retained in
the Constitution. So it is with the present
article; it raises the question whether a
member of Congress may be considered absent
on the business of the State or of the United
States, when he is attending to his Congressional
duties at Washington, when he would be con-
stantly in the habit of meeting constituents in
that city on their way to make European tour,
and no supposition as to their forfeiting their
residence would be entertained He moved to
lay the whole subject on the table Which mo-
tion prevailed.
MODE OF VOTING.
art. l0l. In all elections by the people, the
vote shall be by ballot, and in all elections by
the Senate and House of Representatives, joint
ly or separately, the vote shall be given piyo
UOce"
Mr.. GARDERE offered the following substitute
In all elections by the people, and in all
elections by the Senate and House of Represen-
tatives, jointly or separately, the vote shall be
given piua p0ce."
Mr.. DUFoUR moved to lay the substitute on
the table. Which motion prevailed by so yeas,
36 nays
Mr.. RICHARDSON, of Ouachita, offered to
amend by inserting the words, 'suntil the Gen.
eral Assembly shall otherwise direct" This
Mr.. Richardson remarked, would give full power
to the Legislature over law which belonged tc
them
Mr.. DUFoUR said that there are certain prin
ciples that cannot be surrendered, and if We
allow the slightest laxity of vigilance over them
it shows that our faith in these principles is
wayering. That members of both Houses shall
vote cioa Uoce is q thing never to be surrendered
If we throw that principle into the hands of the
Legislature, the first, second or third Legislature
will return to their old vote by ballot This
the people do not want and will not have
He therefore moved to lay the gentlemans
amendment on the table.
MR PARHAM-f you give the Legislature the
power to establish the piDa r0ce system of voting
by the people, you must abolish the law for one
day voting, which the people most want In
NewOrleans and other districts, it would be i'm
possible for the people to vote ciua voce in one
day; and you would be virtually disfranehising
Il portion Of the people of the State
The motion was laid on the table. y The arti-
Gle was adopted without amendment.