New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1866-01-25

ity or propriety but ample time could be had lot
mature deberaton. Pledged as he was TO vote
for convention he had yielded to those reasons,
and SO had many other gentlemen in his situation.
But now it was claimed that because they had con-
sented to postponement they had surrendered.
Such, he was 50 tisied, was not the conviction OF
the House, and such, he knew, was not the design
of the supporters of the bill reported by the COM
mittee.
Now, more than ever, he deemed it an impera-
tive duty to pass an act calling Convention
During the recess he had freely consulted with his
constituents on the subject, and after his inter
with them he felt that he could not hesitate
as to his course. They, and he believed he might
add the great mass of the people of the State de-
manded a constitution framed by their own SER
wants. It was demanded by imperative and
rnomentous interests of the State. The resolution
proposed that committee of the Assembly should
perform the high functions of a Constitutional
Convention. They had much better confine them
selves to their appropriate duties of ordinary legs-
lation. The construction or establishment of a
constitution was not within their legitimate sphere
of duties. Whatever the design of the framer of
the resolution might be, in efecti was an effort
to establish constitution which had no existence
as an organic law Of the State. The constitution
of 1864 contained in itself provision which killed
it, Article 81 provided that before the instrument
became the organic law, it should be submitted to
the people Of every parish on the lst of February,
1865, for ratification or rejection. 1t had never
been SO submitted, and even admitting that it had
been framed by the duly chosen representatives of
the people of the whole State, was it not patent
that it was to be regarded as noncxistent?
But it was urged that the election of this Legis-
lature and Of the State officers constituting the
government of the State, under the proclamation
of the Governor, was recognition of the Consti-
tuition of 1864, and therefore, it was binding. But
was it not absurd to argue that the Governor had
authority to designate constitution for the State
He conld not breathe the breath of life into an
instrument, which, by its own conditions was de-
funet The people only could give it vitality, and
go far as the House had evidence of the popular
opinion the public voice was for repudiating and
not ratifying the instrument. Then how could
this Legislature proceed to amend a constitution
which was not the constitution Of the State2 If
any constitution was in existence, it was that Of
1862, which had never been abrogated. In the
Constitution of 1864 there was no foundation to
build upon. 1t was void ab ifitio. In choosing a
State government, in the meeting of the Legisla-
ture in acts of legislation, without having any re-
cognized fundamental law, the people of the State
had simply yielded to a current of unavoidable
events, but in yielding they had granted au-
thory to officer, to no law-making body to set
| up a constitution for them. The people demanded
constitution of their own making, and it was the
duty of the Assembly to provide for convention
which shall represent the dignity Of the people, and
to which shall be delegated their whole power. 1t
was frittering away time, in seeking to give life to
| a dead carcas. g...a-.-..
After aenouncing the Constitution of 1864 as an
unlawful and bastard production, Mr.. Tucker asked
what power existed anywhere to dissolve the Con-
stitution under which Louisiana had been admitted
into the Union? The Constitution of 1852, he con
tended, was still the Constitution of the State, but
as great revolution had thrown things into such
confusion as they were, and as the result of that
revolution had involved the necessity Of great or
ganic changes, a new Constitution was indispen-
sable But it was not for legislative committee,
or legislature itself, to usurp the Office of franz
ing the instrument To amend the Constitution
4 of 1864 to make it an acceptable law would re-
quire revision of the whole instrument. He had
| from his own examination, found over twenty
amendments necessary. And such q multiplicity
of amendments it was impracticable to sub
nit to the people in satisfactory man
the extra session, covered the whole ground
1t proposed to submit the question of convention
or no convention to the people themselves. Wha
objection could there be to that? And if the peo
Pile decided in the affirmative, provision was made
for an election. Thus the whole subject was lef
to those most deeply interested. The members o
this assembly had been pledged by the programme
of election for a convention, and what voice. h,
asked, had released them from that pledge? He
for one, should abide by the popular mandate ant
vote for convention at the earliest day.
Mr. Thienemau remarked that no one was NOR,
urgent than he was at the extra session for con
vention. He was then opposed to any delay
because he believed Convention was wish o
the people, and because he supposed the State wa
about to be readmitted into the Union immediately
But, since then, great change had come over tn
| people, as well as over members of this body
Doubtless valid constitution for the State shoul
be formed some time, but was the State now in
condition to frame a constitution Her senator
and representatives had been refused admission
into Congress. In point of fact Louisiana in he
present condition was not O. State. He nov
i believed the most discreet course would be to tax
the sense of the people on the Convention question
and let them decide for themselves whether the
would incur the expense of framing constitution
that might lie declared nullity at Washington
Mr.. Elam, in reply to the argument of MI
Tucker commended that the bill fur an election O
the convention question, which had been reporte
by the Committee at the extra session, had cease
to be subject Of consideration, inasmuch as
had died when the session closed. The resolutio
before the House he regarded as proper mes
} sure. 1t simply asked for committee, to whic
) constitutional amendments proposed should b
} referred. Gentlemen assumed that the constitr
/, tion of 1864 was not binding. If it was not, villa
warrant had the members of the Assembly fo
} being there making laws? BY what warrant di
the Governor aud other State officers exercis
} power? He was no apoogist for that Constitution
and, under ordinary circumstances, he should no
regard it as binding, but he was compelled in th
present anomalous condition of AFFAIRS to conside
} it as binding, as a consequence of the conques
of Louisiana by the arms of the Unite
; States. In that view, it was as legal
binding as if enacted freely and fairly by tn
! whole people of the State. They could not ignor
the fact, it stared them full in the face, whateve
way they turned, that they were bound to obe
Executive proelamatinns and military orders i
all things, and the Constitution of 1864 was tn
creature of military orders. No law can now b
en- forced in the State but by the consent or suf
rance of the Federal Government. 1t was well t