New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1852-09-18
DEBATES OF THE STATE CONvEETION
OF LOUISIANA.

MONDAY, July H. 1852.
COMBINATIONS, Ere, BY THE SENATE
Mr.. PARHAM called up the 44th article of the
Constitution which reads thus:
st stArtcle 34 A majority OF the members
elected to the Senate shall be required for the
confirmation or rejection of officers to be ap-
pointed by the Governor, with the advice and
consent of the Senate, and the Senate in deci-
ding thereon, shall vote by yeas and nays, and
the names Of the Senators voting for and against
the appointments respectively, shall be entered
| on q journal to be kept for that purpose, and
made public at the end of each session
Mr. PARHAM hoped that some delegate who
voted in the majority would move q reconsidera-
ton. 1t must have been only by oversight on
the part of the Convention that it had been
adopted.
Mr. Moss moved to reconsider article "a.
MlR Hunt would vote for reconsideration.
The remedy in this case did not reach the evil
or was the cause of greater evil than it affected
to cure. What is the effect of this rule. For
instance: the State Senate consists of thirty
two members--seyenteeen constitute a quorum.
II seventeen members go into the election Of o
nominee, single member may reject him be.
cause it req Tres q majority Of the Senate to
confirm him. Mr.. FL. read from the Constitu-
ton Of the United States, and said that if the
same rule prevailed in this State it would enable
the Senate to decide promptly on all nomina-
tons. Under the Constitution of the United
! States the rule has operated well. Ii we shape
the rule in this State like that in the Constitu.
ton Of the United States quorum of the SEN
ate may Immediately decide on any nomination.
all that is really required for that purpose can
be accomplished by striking out the first part
and retaining the second part of the article
Lie hoped that the vote would be reconsidered.
Mr. PARHAM did not take the same view as
Mr. Hunt. Under the article as it now stands
he did not think that one member could reject
but the objection was, that it would take the
whole quorum to confirm The rule ought to
read, that 90 a majority of the members of the
Senate shall be required" etc.-this would
mean majority of the members present This
would bring the nomination with fairness before
the Senate, whereas by the article as it now
stands, nine can reject and it requires seventeen
to confirm. This is unfair to the nomination
and puts the chances against the nominee
Mr. PARHAM then offered the following amend
ment:
"The Senate shall vote in the confirmation of
officers to be appointed by the Governor with
the advice and consent of the Senate, by yeas
and nays; and the names of Senators voting for
and against the appointments respectively shall
be entered on journal to be kept for that pur-
pose and made public at the end of each session.
or BEFORE
Mr.. DUFoUR opposed the amendment. He
thought this an attempt to destroy one of the
most conservative features of our Government.
The article as it stood, put it out of the power
OF handful of Senators to thwart the admins
! tration Of the Government. He was surprised
to hear the subject argued as it had been by his
colleague, Mr.. Hunt
The question was then taken on the amend.
ment offered by Mr. Parham, and it was adopted.
TIE PLACE OF VOTING.
rs Srtl L.
article IL Of the Constitution, now moved its re.
| consideration
| The article reads:
| Article H. No person shall be entitled tc
| vote at any election held in this State except in
the parish Of his residence, and in cities and
towns divided into election precincts, in the
election precinct in which he resides''
Mr. SMART said: When the Convention of
lSl2 assembled it seemed that the opinion pre-
vailed that if a man had no property he had no
brains. That opinion was changed afterwards
And when the Constitution of 1915 assembled IT
struck out the property qualification, but re-
tanned others equally odious at least some that
are considered quite as odious in my section of
the State. We have assembled here to make as
hePapncan constitution as we can give the
people. Now he would ask if there was any ius
tice in the fact that native born citizen should
be denied the right to vote because his residence
IS IN one parish and his business requires him to
be IN another on the day of election Should a.
man be deprived of the right of voting for Gov
ernor because his business will not permit him
to vote in his own parish; or of voting for SEN
ator because he is not in his Senatorial District:
or OF voting for Congressman because he is not
IN his Congressional District at the time' To
,blot out this article, would be to extend sheer
act of justice to the citizen. He was aware that
those who held different views were desirous to
protect the purity Of the ballot box. But he
believed that if people so corrupt as to take
advantage of this privilege to the honest voter,
tine means here provided would not prevent the
ballot box from being corrupted. He was very
far from believing that any such corrupt feeling
existed in the country, and he was not inclined
to believe thst it prevailed in the city But if
1t dld exist in the city, the sins of the city should
not be visited On the country. He would sug-
gest as an amendment TO the rule of voting,
however, that whenever any citizen voted out of
his district, he should vote an open ticket
MIR WApDILL agreed with the delegate who
had just taken his seat. Our object is 10 frame
such Constitution as will obtain the full sense
OF the people under its provisions, If people
called away from home are not to be entitled to
vote IN parts Of the State where they are called
to, an election may be held where not one fourth
OF the sense of the deople may be taken. We
can not stop people from travelling, and when
their business calls them, they ought to lose no
rights by travelling. He would vote for the re-
consideration.
MIR SMART having called for the yeas and
nays on his motion to reconsider, the following
was the vote:
Yeas-Messrs Beard, Bullard, Davidson, De-
4RF itEs5ha, mhasfHP uhHRfyefr rHaHfisr se
borough, Shelton, Smith of Winn, Sibley, Tai
iaferro, Todd, Waddill, Whittington-21.
.NaVs--Messrs. Anderson of st. Landry, An
derson of Carroll, Akenhead, Avery, Andrews,
Addison, Bradford, Bartlett, Bernard, Beale,
Bienvenu, Bodousque, Boyer, Buisson, Byrne
Castellanos, Carter, Campbell, Cotton, Conneiy
Conrad, Dalferes, DeClouet, Dorsey, Douglass
Dufour, Edwards of Orleans, Edwards of Wash
ington ,Eustis, ,Gardere, ,Guion, Hatch, Hays, Her
ron. Hernandez, Hunt, Isacks. Jennings, Jones
King of St. Landry, King Of jackson, Lapeyre
Leefe, Leeds, Leblanc, Lobdell, Lyle, Mellhen
ny, Mathews of Point Cvupee, Marrero, Martin
Monge, Nichols, Olivier of st. Martin, Paltrey
Paxton, Pearce, Phillips, Reeves, Richardson
Ouachita, Richardson of st. Mary, Rosel'us
Ronauillo, Robinson, st. Paul, Staes, SwazeJ
Shaw, Simms, Stewart, Tatman, Talbot, ThlbC
daux, Thompson, Villere and Williams-76.
So the reconsideration was not granted.
= ORDER OF THE DAY-QUALIFICATIoNs FOR COY
ERNoR, ETC.
The Secretary read =,
cart. 80. No person shall be eligible to Il
office of Governor or Lieutenant Governor, WI
! shall not have attained the age of thirty n
years, been fifteen years q citizen of the Unit,
: States, and resident within the State for Il
| sponn nf time nayt Drecadinp his election