New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-13

tnat ne Intentionally says what Is ialse-Dus
If he says what he believes to be true, then
it is SO warped by his prejudices in the con-
struction which he puts on the language,
that he is mistaken, or he is what l repre-
sent him to be. But he is not what rep
resent him to be; he is what the managers
represent him to be, am willing to take
1t for granted; but, 1 say, if it be so, then
ms conduct proves he is mistaken, and my
client said it was an error, and if he did
say 1t was an error, then he is guiltless Of
any otftnse.
We come now to the little $1,000 war
rant, issued in favor of these Sisters of
Charity in thaparish of Jefferson. This is
an awful case. perfectly horrible, that the
Auditor should have recognized the valid
ity Of this warrant, because it was issued
under the government of lS62-the rebel
government. That raises simply legal
question. They do not say that be cor
ruptiy did it, because, although they say
that lie did it for money broker, no one
can for moment believe but that the
warrant was issued originally to the Sisters
Of Charity. and, therefore, the money
broker got it because the Sisters OF Charity
sold it for value. I do not presume that
the Sisters of Charity gave it to the money
broker-nenlo presunlitoT d0ndre. On that
question l feel very sore. because. fortu-
| nately for me, have decision of the SUI
preme Court of the United States
on the subject, that all acts done
by the rebel government in the res
pective States were not void I call
them rebel governments, in Difference to
the phraseology used by the honorable
managers, ana 1 suppose, as events
turned out, they were. The prin-
cple is this: The constitution Of the
United States, as amended, only declares
invalid any obligation or contract made
in aid of the rebellion; and the question
is whether the giving OF sustenance or
support to these poor orphans in the
parish of Jefferson was an act in aid OF
the rebellion. The truth is, that the SUI
preme Court of the United States held all
ac's done by the de facto government of
the rebel States which were not directly in
aid of the rebellion but acts necessary for
the protection of the public peace, or pro-
lection of life aud property, were valid,
and on that point cite the case:
White VS.. State Of Texas, Wallace, page
1888. Chief Justice Chase says: 1T Is not
necessary to attempt any exact
definitions within which the acts OF such
State government must be treated as valid
or invalid. 1t may be said. perhaps with
sufficient accuracy. that acts necessary to
peace and good order among citizens, such,
for example, as acts sanctiOning and pro.
tecting marriage, and the domestic relations
governing the course of descents, regulating
the transfer and conveyance of property,
real and personal, and providing remedies
for injuries to person and estate, AID other
similar acts, which would be valid if elnan-
ating from a lawful government, must be re-
garded in general as valid when proceeding
| from an actual, though unlawful govern
ment; and that acts i'll support or in further
ance of rebellion against the United States,
| or intended to defeat the just rights of citi-
| zens, and other acts of like nature, must in
| general be regarded as invalid and void"
| Thus drawing a line of distinction
| which every sensible man must draw, be-
| tween ordinary acts of government, acts
for the general good OF society, and acts
| in support of the rebellion, or at least in
! aid OF it.
| I cite, also, the case of the State VS..
Louisiana State Bank twentieth Annual,
| page 469), when the sole question was
whether certain bonds issued in 1868 were
or were not issued in aid of the rebellion.
In that case the Supreme Court goes into
a lengthy discussion to establish that the
| bonds in question were void, not because
they were issued in 1862 by rebel gov
ernment, and therefore void, but because
they were issued to aid the rebellion, aud
for that reason nlegal-a discussion en-
tirely unnecessary, if bonds of every de-
scription issued when Louisiana was in re-
bellion were for that reason alone stricken
with nullty.
In this case the Supreme Court refused
to recognize the validity of these bonds
because they were issued in aid of the re-
bellion.
Therefore, I say that this article seems
to be nothing more tn II an ungenerous APP
peal to prejudice, and based on an unde-
fined and general idea that everything
connected with the rebellion was wrong;
every thing done within the lines of the
rebellion, no matter how good an act. If q
man paid his debts it was treason; if q
man buried his child within the lines Of the
rebellion it was sin, and he was doomed
to perdition, and his prayers could not be
heard. This is a vindctive prejudice
which I am satisfied this enlightened body
will never allow to operate ON it, but as
far as I can Judge, this court will do as
the counsel for the accused do, and as we
desire to bury the past, and recognize the
new order of things, the progress of civ
iilZation. such as produced by the war,
and growing out of it, and We desire to go
band in hand with you, recognizing the
rights of all men, civil and political, and
let the dead past bury its dead. This is
what we desire to effect, and thus oblite-
rate passion and prejudice, which we all
wish to burysforever.
But Mr.. Wickliffe has plundered the
State; and here l wish to call the atten-
ton of Senators to the articles where he
is charged with plundering. If he plum
dered any one, it was individuals, and not
the State. This $1,000 warrant 1 have
explained; these coupon warrants have
explained; the Kaufman case l have ex-
planned but be has issued, good
Lord, how many warrants fo1 PEN
sions overdrawn how much the ap-
preparation for printing. You appro-
priated $3.50 ,000 and he issued $500, 600.
You thought that the pensions would
amount to S30,000 and he issued
Lord knows how many warrants for PEN
j sions. l take it for granted; but whose
: fault is that? Whose fault is it? Why at
the prayer meeting which we held this
morning, one of the honorable managers
: confessed and asked the Lord to forgive
, him for having participated in such legis-
, lation; and the Senator from Ouachita,
when examined as a witness, said that he
understood. in framing the law, that every
pension granted was specific appropria-
g, ton. / think he was right. show that
e my client carried out his intention; and
, yet, because this "Lord deliver III" law