The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-01-05
GOVERNOR wARMoIH's MESSAGE.


sions. 1t is not destitute of some praiseworthy
sentiments and some salutary recommends
tons; and in respect to several grave and
delicate topics it is marked by reserved and
cautious tone which, if inexplicit, seems
timely and to admit of favorable interpreta-
ton. Nevertheless, the effect OF the mes
sage, taken as a whole, is more comparable to
the scriptural pot of ointment rendered
thoroughly malodorous by the presence of a
dead fly than to modifying and healing
balm applied to political and social troubles
and disorders, sores and irritations.
The dead fly which imparts, in this case,
an offensive and unwholesome SAVIOR is the
reference which Gov. Warmoth makes to the
popular dislike and mistrust of State gov
eminent which does not represent the State,
and to the excitements and incidents of the
November election, which did, in its results
at the polls, notwithstanding the earnest
wishes and efforts of the existing authorities
to the contrary, express the will of the people
Of the State. This portion of the message is
strictly and narrowly partisan; a tissue of
bold, unqualified assertions and of selfevident
exaggerations which would be indecent even
in campaign document; weak but spite
ful tumble of accusatory phrases in which
there is bat single pretense to an argument,
and that so puerile and idiotic in its fallacy as
to be simply ridiculous. Here is the passage
where the governor suspends for a moment
the easy task of plain and INSCRIPTIONS
asseveration and tries the argumentative
style:
Out Of IS parishes IN the State, Z, towit: De
Soto, Laiay ette 81. Landry, Vermilion, Franklin,
jackson and Warrington, pOlled in pr for the
ratification Of the Constitution, four thousand
seven hundred and four votes (4704) but did not
give Gen. Grant single vote. Eight other par
ihes, towit: Bienville, Bossier CaddO, Claiborne,
Morehouse, Union, st. Bernard and Sabine gave
five thousand five hundred and twenty votes
(5520) for the Constitution, but cast only ten l0)
votes for Gen Grant. Twenty-one parishes, cast
ing for the ratification of the new Constitution
twen'y Fix thou ,and eight hundred and fourteen
votes (26sl4) gave Gen. Grant only five hundred
and ore (50l) votes, and the whole State, polling
in April for the Constitution ard the Republican
state ticket, sixty one thousand one bundled and
fity-twO (6l l52) votes. or majority Of seventeen
thousand four hundred and thirteen az, ABB gave
Gen. Grant in November. following. only thirty.
four thousand eight hundred and fifty nine
(34 500 votes.
Now, can anybody in his senses conceive
what logical connection there is between the
election to take the sense of voters on the
Constitution in the spring and the presidential
election in the following autumn? One was
a State election; the other was a federal cleo
ton. One was held while the State was in
process of reconstruction, while it was still
under military jurisdiction, and while the
people were at the mercy of registration
which was intended to disfranchise and did
effectually disfranchise, more than a third of
the white population. The other was held
after the State had been turned over to the
civil authorities by the military power and
formally recognized by Congress as a State
reconstructed and in the Union. And the
conditions of the two elections as to motives
operating upon the minds of voters were
altogether different. In the spring election
the portion of the whites who were not
DISTINGUISHED declined for the most part to
vote on the Constitution, in the hope of de-
feating j! by causing the aggregate of votes
polled to fall below the number required by
act of Congress. Add to this fact the almost
universal belief among the colored population
that the ratification of the Constitution was
essential to the security of their freedom, and
it must be clear to every rational understand
ing why the parishes enumerated by
Gov. Warmoth gave the majorities for the
Constitution which are stated. But it is
not clear upon what logical grounds he
infers that the same parishes were bound
to give corresponding majorities for Grant
in the presidential election, or any major
tiles whatever for the Republican cam
didate, unless he denies the right of
Of the several parishes, or of the State at
large, to go against Republican ticket. This,
to be sure, would be according to the logic of
Radical practice. Heretofore, however, no
exponent of Radiealism, though he were the
most impudent and blatant of carpet-baggers,
has gone so far as to define the elective fran
chise to be the right to cast the vote of a
parish or of the whole State for Republican
candidates, and none other. But Governor
Warmoths argument means this if it
if this definition were conceded, he would
have good reason to complain of gross fraud
and outrage as exhibited in the majority
which the people of this State had the lawless
effrontery to cast against the Republican can
didate for President. But the county is not
yet exactly prepared for such a concession.
1t is not law. Gov. Warmoth's complaint is
utterly foundationless in law or in morals, in
principle OF in fact No one knows better than
he that the Democratic majority in this
State, while it would have been inevitable
upon the fairest and fullest vote, was made
as great as it was by the abstention of colored
voters acting under the guidance of Radical
leaders. Having despaired OF carrying the
election, they concluded to organize this
abstention, and charge the result to the
intimidation and violence of the opposite
party. The only logical aspect that can be
claimed for the argument of Gov. Warmoth
is the official countenance and support which
it gives to this vile trick
We now take pleasure in passing to less
objectionable parts Of the message.
When the governor recommends an increase