New Orleans daily crescent., 1866-02-19
The yetoes.

| In the discussions relative to- the recent veto
messages of the Governor, the supporters of that
high functionary have rested their defense of his
course on the grounds that the bills vetoed, espe
cially that referring to the municipal elections,
contravened the 10th article of the Constitution
of 1854, which is in the following words: r'
ART. ll9. No law shall be amended by reference
to its title but in such case the act revised or
the section amended shall be re-enaoted and pub
lished at length.
His Exoeleney, in his communications to the
Senate, does not state distinctly what his const-
tutional objections are; he speaks of constitu-
| tional objections which he may have and might
urge. 71%HT@s& y AAFzaA4 ,A&*9
But upon the above cited article ll9, the Hon.
Messrs. Hough and Duvigneaud, of the Senate,
and Sulle, Of the House, and the executive news
paper organ of Friday last rest their defense of
the executive action.
Their argument, as far as it is comprehensive, is
to the effect that the bills vetoed especially that
with reference to the municipal election, alter and
modify to some extent certain prior laws, and that,
therefore, rs those laws are not re-enacted and
published at length the 10th article of the Con-
stitution is violated. Fi
There is just enough Of speciousness and plausi.
bility in this assumption to entte it to moments
| examination--nothingm more. In the first place
neither of the bills vetoed profess or pretend to
amend any law by reference to its title, but en-
body substantive and affirmative legislation upon
definite and distinct subject matter. If the lati-
| tudinous ground is assumed, that because they
modify and alter some provisions of certain prior
laws, that therefore, they amendatory in their
character, and the prior laws must be set out, re-
enacted and published at length, it would be easy
to demonstrate, that under that construction of
article ll9, not one single actof general nature,
(not professedy amendatory of some prior law, J
hasbeen passed. the legislature since the adoption
of the Constitution that's not in contravenon of it,
| and that neither Mr.. Hough, Duvigneaud or Stille
have introduced single bill that is not unconsti-
| tutional. Take for example, what is known as
the Homestead Law, passed at the extra session,
| and now on the statute book, which was drawn up
and introduced by Senator Hough. That bill ex-
| empts from seizure under execution certain pro.
perty, liable to seizure under prior laws, which
are thereby altered, modified and amended. Did
it occur to the Senator that it was necessary in
| order to keep himself within the provisions of
article ll9, to incorporate in his bill, reenact and
publish at length, all the laws or any of them
so modified and amended by his homestead ex-
emption bill? If SO, why did he not do it? The
same remarks apply to Senator Duyigneauds bill
relative to the publication Of legal and judicial
advertisements, and to his bill relative to re-
spite,' which proposes to, modify, alter and
! amend our existing law on the subject of in
| solyency. which law, however, Senator Duvig-
neaud has not seen proper to incorporate in
his bill with view to its being re-enacted
and published at length as amended In fact, as
before remarked, there is not single act of a
general nature not professedly amendatory Of
some other law, passed or pending, which could
not be proved to be unconstitutional if the latitu-
| dinous construction contended for by Messrs.
| Hough, Duvigneaud and Stlle be given to article
| one hundred and nineteen.
I The whole argument is about on a par as to
wisdom and craftsmanship with that which, after
conceding frankly and promptly, to people the
privilege of eiecting all the great political officers
of the State, Governor, Congressman, and Legisla-
tors can stoop to cav and bubble about the cleo
ton of justice of the peace or constable.
!, Senator Egan, in his able speech
upon the Governors last veto, cited
some half dozen articles of the Constitution of
| 1864, whose plain provisions are openly disre-
garded and pertinaciously set at naught by the
Executive and yet he hints at the possible exist
ence of constitutional doubts or scruples which he
may have and might urge, as a reason for defeat
ing the almost unanimous will of the people by
whose votes he is Governor of louisiana .
This is, indeed, straining at a gnat, and swallow
ing not camel only. but whole menagerie, in-s
cluding the hippopotamus, rhinoceros and ele.
phant. --.... . ARTEs1AN.
The President and the Radicals.