The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-02-15
Conservative Logic in the Louisiana
Case.


Our Democratic contemporary makes the fol-
lowing plea in behalf of the so-called State
Government of Louisiana
"I,ouisiana has a state Government. IL has
been recognized by the Executive aud Judl%cial %
branches OF the national GovernmenC, uhd utso
6y Ge Legislative u, many ,9as eSpect@gsg @ . 0y rg
act dppOTtonf1l0 Representatives. Gnlonghe SeOeIuG
States, and IN counting The Uote o. rs Le0Seuue
Hpon he ratification Of the Constitutional an'e""-
Slent." f.
1--WE hardly know which the more to admire,
our contemporaries ignorance of facts or its
disregard of logic.
The act apportioning Representatives among
the several States, on the basis of population
as aseertained in 1860, ,oas passed March 4,
1862, t,0e years before the present State Gooern-
snent of Louisiana had any existence, and some
time before the Federal troops had even cap
tured New Orleans Moreover, if the passage
of that act recognized" any State Government
in Louisiana, it must have been the Rebel one,
of which the Rebel "Governor" Allen was
the head, because that was the only one then
in existence. Hence it would follow that the
present so scaled State Government of Loui-
siana is mere usurpation, with no rightful
authority whatever, and, occording to our con-
Again, if the act apportioning representa-
tives among the several States was recogni-
tion of the validity of the State Government
then in existence in Louisiana, it. was equally
a recognition of the validity of every other
Rebel State Government then in existence.
And from this, again, flows the inevitable con-
clusion that every one of the so-called State
~, Ila lofo tote l.
usurpation, deserving of overthrow.
Our contemporaries argument, therefore, is
fatal to the legality of the Governments set up
by President Johnson in the late Rebel States.
It makes them to be unconstitutional and
revolutionary. 1t leaves them no possible
ground to stand upon. 1t is a complete justi
fcation both of the Eliot bill and of the mill
tary reconstruction bill, so far as the over
throw of the illegal and bastard Estate Govern
: ments' of the South are concerned
The second attempted argument of our
contemporary, that Congress has recognized
the present State Government of Louisiana by
counting the vote of its Legislature upon the
ratification of the Constitutional amendment,
has the capital defect of resting upon an
dSSul16u ldCL WHICH - llO letCIs OOllSlVoS utu
not count the vote of Louisiana upon the rati-
fioation of that amendment. That knocks the
bottom out of that argument.
Congress never counted the votes cast upon
that amendment by any or all of the States.
1t simply proposed the amendment, without
specifying whether the late Rebel States were
entitled to take part in its ratification or not.
I'll Of hot
and forced them to ratify it; but Congress had
nothing to do with the matter. If, as matter
of fact, the late Rebel States ,oere entitled to
vote upon that amendment, then it was duly
ratified, unless the plea of acting under duress
should be set up by the late Rebel States
which the President forced to act as they did
If they were not enttl ed to vote upon it, then
the amendment received sufficient number
votes for its adoption by the States actually
constituting the Government.
No; the truth is that, from its very incep
tion Congress has refused to recognize the
legality of the so-called State Government of
Louisiana. 1t has steadily refused admission
to Representatives from it. 1t refused to allow
it to take part in the Presidential election Of
1864. That Government" has no basis Of
law or right to stand upon, 1t is a mere
usurpation, and poor one at that.