New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1854-02-04

disfranchise the New Orleans delegation and
voters, but even to array city and country, in
| fraternal strife. For my part, / saw no grounds
for democracy IS mounting the high horse of any
| such arguments. 1t was but an enquiry which
was moved an enquiry, the conducting OF
which would have been necessarily left in the
hands of the majority--that is, the aforesaid
democracy. But all legislative usage, as gen.
eral principle regards motion of Enquiry as a
thing that cannot be refused, in any grave mat
| ter. Here, it was one not less serious than the
Constitution and the oath to it under which they
all sat, the right by which part of them were
! there. Yet more; it was in reality an enquiry
| into the consequences of one of their own pub
| lie wrongs, public betrayals of duty for party
| purpose, which was moved and how did they
meet it? By angry mis- pleadings and that
triumphant self. vindcation, voting down the
investigation. Now, we crave permission to say
to them one plain thing in such a case, party
relying on its innocence does not resort to argu-
ment, but appeals to fact: it courts the proofs !;
! it seeks to have the case made out; it is anxious
| to have the issue Of its adversaries presented in
all its force, with all the strength that an I'M
| trammeled investigation can give: for free
| and fair investigation only can be decisive
vindication. Not proceeding thus, what verdict
have they to show in acquittal? Their own
and accompanied by the unanswerable fact,
that they dared not, even with all the advan.
tages of majority, meet an enquiry. That
fact is something it sets the seal upon their
conviction: it proves that they knew they could
not escape it. As to the pretence that motto
Of enquiry g disfranehised' members or voters,
how could that be pretended, unless by admit
ting that the investigation was sure to go
against them' If, therefore, this allegation
was an argument, it was a self-destructive one
But, even waving that inevitable conclusion, is
it DISTINGUISHING people to declare void an cleo
ton held in contempt of the Constitution or
law Nay, call it, if you insist, g disfranchi-
sing" and, even then, whose will the act
really be- Their own for it was they who, by
their party action in the last Legislature, de-
feated registry-law, in order that there might
be fraudulent and unconstitutional election
They urged, with some ingenuity, that the
Housegcould not entertain this question; because
it was really a question as to the right of the
New Orleans delegation to sit, and such ques-
ton could not be raised until an adverse claim
ant came forward to test seat This was Mr..
Roberts's argument and acute enough: but, to
my thinking, only good as special pleading and
this is no matter for merely technical law
There is q very plain answer-that this is q case
where there could be no contestant: for the
ground taken is that there could be no legal
election until a Registry law had been passed
in compliance with the Constitution Thus the
contestant would have to deny his own right to
q seat. But besides, Mr. Roberts is wrong in
surprising that there must always be contest
ant That is not Parliamentary law there
are plenty of cases to the contrary; | will
remind him of one, which is sufficient. When
Congress passed, about the year 1913, an cleo
ton law, directing the States tc elect their mem
bers by single districts, four democratic States
nullifed the law and elected BY general ticket
Of course, there were no contestants but the
matter was taken up in Congress by Resolution
an enquiry was had, and though democratic
majority confirmed the members in their seats
md really nullifed their own law, yet it was
only on the absurd party ground that Congress
vas impotent over its own elections, and could |
lot compel the States to elect otherwise than
hey pleased.
But, to continue some commended that as the
9th section of the Constitution gave the right
f voting to men of such and such qualifications,
10 noncompliance with the 18th section could
AXE it away they must vote. Wrong for the
9th section prescribes ooho shall vote; the 18th,
loac they shall vote; and both must be complied
With. All this did hinder the majority from
'oting down the enquiry, by IS to is.
l have nothing further to note, except the
GLOWING welcome Resolutions of Mr.. Roberts
BE Il resolved, By the Senate and House of Repre
entatyes Of the State of Louisiana General Assembly
onyened:
Mississippi River to the Atlantic Ocean as work emil
entity national in its character and necessary as means
communication between che Atlantic and Pacific ]
tates and Indispensable a OF defense in time
" Be further enacted, That we regard the Ell Paso and
a route the most practicable better adapted to
wants Of Commerce. both home and foreign and pre-
rabe of national defense eli calculated
strengthen the bonds Of Union among the several
tates.
BE further fesolred That we highly commend the ac
OF our sister State Texas in reference this great
Enterprise and we regard her magnificent as an
violence of her regard for her national obligations
BE 1t further Tes0tued That Senators instructed
nd Representatives in Congress be requested to urge
pom that body The propriety of granting liberal Incl
enta aid to this work much needed both by Gov
'nmeEt and the citizens Of the United States
Be further 5esobei That the Governor of this State
and he is hereby instructed to forward copy of these
solutions to each of Senators and members Con-
ess.n d. W i