The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-10-22
Speech Of the Hon. J. P. BENJAMIN,
In the Louisiana State Convention, in reply to the
Hon Pierre Soule. on the 4th Fehrnar1 1915

3 FEBRUARY A. 1S45.-The convention took up the
order of the day-the executive department ques
ton being the striking out the word "native-re-
quiring the governor to bea native American On this
subject Mr. Benjamin spoke as follows:
He rose to address the convention on this question
with some embarrassment, which, however was alone
caused from not having had the pleasure of listening
to the arguments from the beginning of the discussion
he compelled to be absent yesterday during the
greater part of the debate. 4. ID sa. .ay.s.#
He has listened to the eloquent remarks that have
to-day been made, with much pleasure and congratr-
ates the honorable gentleman, not alone on his oren-
sic ability, but because he has said and embraced in
his speech all that be said that side of the
ton. feel Mr.. President, that it is duty which
to the members of the committee who made the re-
port which is under consideration to state here
plainly openly, clearly that aacas at suggestion that
the arord naue" the gist controversy was insert
ed in the section before for our consideration
IT, therefore, SIR there be to be cast upon any
one for that apparently Objectionable word upon nv
shoulders it must in justice fall. 1t becomes then
conceive, part of my duty to reply to the arguments
offered by the honorable delegate, (Mr Soue,) who
astaddressed you and to the best of my humble abil
ty to endeavor to refute them .
The very able and eloquent address which he has
made you, comprises not alore all his own views on
this subject, but without doubt includes all that has
been advanced by other members who agree with him
in opinion Consequently the few remarks with which
shall trouble the convention, will be taken (as de-
sire they should be my reply to all that has been
advanced by those who are opposed to the principle
which desire to established in our organic laws
The honorable gentleman (Mr. Soule) had scarcely
commenced his remarks on this question: thought
proper to rebuke the spirit of provision and ascrb
ed to us feelings that ennoble no man. He is mista-
ken, greatly in error if he supToses that the section
under consideration was conceived or thought of
under what he peases to term the doctrine of natve
ISM" ~
ask the gentleman to show ifhe can, where, how
0nH n wis man A l,,a
er shown any jealousy towards hsnaturalised brother
citizens Look at the history of the country and point
out to me, IT you can single instance where any such
feeling has been known to exist. No. sir nor have
we doae anything in this hall, that l aware of
either in discussing the rights of suffrage or in apy
other way, that should render us liable to censure on
the part OF either our brother delegates or our const
tuents
How have invaded or restricted the rights of the
naturalised citizens? Have you deprived him of the
rights which he has constitutonaly acquired? Have
you placed him. heretofore different footing from
the citizens of sister States? Are we not all on the
same footing? Then what becomes of the assumption
that we have restricted them in their rights? When
they can show that, then shall be willing to ac
knowledge that have been mistaken in the previous
acts of this convention.
The position advanced by some of the members on
this floor on recent occasion, that political residence
could be acquired by aliens, is his MR. B 81 mind
an absurd one, and we did not then fail to express
selves fully and sustain the flsy Of such doctrine
How then stands the case?
They assumed that principle; we denied it-and
what the action of the convention on the subject?
Why, they decided simply that alien could not ac
qulre political residence What then becomes of the
charge that have attacked the rights and privileges
OF the foreigner? Where then is the odous restriction
which, trumpet tongued we have so repeatedly been
charged with by the honorable member, as endeavor
ing to asten upon the foreigner? We have respected
their feelings and have in I'll respects harmonsed
with them as with American brethren. Do those
gentlemen think, who profess much zeal here, and
pretend to so much ovfor the foreigner that they
alone IN their feelings of gratitude to those foreigners
who in the hour of our counys need to our
No, sir. All Americans feel it. But feeling and ac-
knowledging it as am willing to do, that are in
debted to them for that service, is that why
we should place ourselves politically at their mercy?
Is that why should deliver ourselves bound
hand and foot to them that they may obtain the
mastery over us in our own government and our
institution! For my part sr, shall forever oppose
any measure come from what quarter it mav that will
tend to take from the hands the American people the
reins of their government.
The honorable gentleman in adverting to the prima-
ry rights with which all American citizens arc vested
to illustrate his argument by making com
parison between the common partnership individu
ais and the political partnership of natulised and ma
tive born citizens, and tried to show you algu
ment, that they were equally concerned in the welfare
or mlstortunes OF the government and he to contri
butte, If necessary, their quota to its wants. For my
part cannot conceive there is any analogy in the two
cases, and if there We're, the gentlemans argument
would not be aided by it, for it frequently happens in
partnerships for business that naturally agreed that
OF the partners is alone and solely charged with the
government of the partnership affairs.
But, sir, deny the gentleman's premises; deny
what he has been pleased to term an axiom that all
men entitled to equal political rights and that we
have no power under mandate from the people to
those rights. Isuch the case sir,
whence have We derived the power upon the restrc-
tons rs to residence color age, which have area
dy imposed without to do being question
ed? If the gentleman argument be correct it should
hold good throughout but its error is evnced when it
is carried to It's extreme and its lsty proven by
complete reductio ad absurdum. 49,
Sir, scarcely provision of any kind be propos-
ed In this hall without outcry about restriction
Every measure proposed is at once attacked ere
strlcton upon the people. Allow me to ask for what
purpose we are here? Is it not to make constitution?
And what is constitution except system of rules
and restrictions intended to permanent gov
enment, which shall be unaffected by the changing
views and passions of the hour which shall restrict
maorltes and protect mnorties? fthe people are to
be governed without restrictions at all, some hon
orable members Yfuld to insist, whata farce
our proceedings Nhyn every question that shall
arlse assemble the people in your public squares and
let the majority decide? Surely, sir, thiss correct
view OF our mandate duties and since every right
strctons must be imposed the people, in every
suulon, let gentlemen prove when restriction pro-
posed that 1t is inoppol%ne inexpedient and not
content themselves with merely excaiming againstre
strehons Sir, gentlemen who push their arguments
to these extremes, not the true friends of popular
government.
1twa well remarked the other day in debate by an
honorable delegate from New Orleans, (Mr. Grymes,)
That government may become SO popular as to be
government at all. An absence of all restrictions
leaves necessity all powerin the hands ofthe strong
est or In other words reduces society to anarchy and
yet, when endeavor to avoid this result by guard
ing our government our institutions and the prosper
ty OF our country from danger, honorable members
ply by accusing of bias towards aristocracy or
The question under discussion has been
presented on two grounds, both of which shall en-
deayor to treatlst have we the power? 2nd is it
pedlent to insert this provision In our constitution
The gentleman has roundly asserted that this State
has notthe constitutional power to prescribe quail
heatlon for governor that he should be native born
citizen OF the United States. This, sir is indeeda
vel, and may be allowed to add, startling remark
from gentleman learned and SO eminent as the hon
orable delegate from lew Orleans can say sir with
truth that having grown up from my earliest youth
institutions ofthe country having been com
PEELED to make them my special study in the practice
Of my Professions and having the right say without
hope being accused of presumption that they IA
mlar to me, never, till this hour heard doubt sug
gested as to the constitutional power of State to pre-