New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-09-24


of a responsible indorser, our duty in til
n matter prompts us to another course
And as we find in an admittedly respec,
able and usually fair journal (the Be-
- an epitome Of all the charges that hav
been brought against the Governor fror
the days when George NJ. Wickliffe col
lapsed down to the more recent ''moder
instance" we will take that paper at it
word, and ask it to accept the logical re
suit of trial by proof. Says the Bee:
Certainly he has been very much belle,
and traduced if he has not been the leader
the handspring and fountain head of all tn
!. shameless prostitution of the Legislative,
power in our State government which W.
have seen since he became its chief execu
tive officer Admitting that he may no
have been the planner OF any of the Wit
schemes executed or unexecuted during hi
occupancy of the Governors chair it is un
deniable that he has failed to denounct
them and to expose the men who did pla1
them.
Our information is very erroneous if Gov
ernor Warnloth is not almost wholly re
sponsible for the introduction into Louis
lana of those venal practices which have
made the legislation of the State "a kissing
and byewOrd," and which have utterly de
stroyed the confidence Of the community
even in the administration of Justice by our
courts We do not know anything about
| Governor WarmOthS natural tendencies "
We can only judge him by his acts and
these. justify us in saying that a more delib.
erately INSCRIPTIONS and wicked ruler never
cursed any people. He has, in our judg-
ment, inflicted injuries upon the people Of
this State, moral and otherwise, for which
no atonement can be made.
So, then, the alternative is presented that
Governor Warmoth is very bad man in
deed, or else bad men have lied about him.
And it is to be regretted that the Bee
has withheld from the public that
Testimony" which will turn out to
be every erroneous, if it can not prove
the Governor to be responsible for the
introduction Of ''veral practices" From
whence does our contemporary receive the
information to sustain such sweeping
charges against the executive? Is it in
the form of letters giving names and dates?
Does the Bee find it in any of the recorded
official acts of the Governor? Is there
man in the State of LOUISIANA who will
come forward and say that the Governor
ever accepted bride for the performance
of any official duty, either to sign an act or
to issue commission? We believe we
are as familiar with the people of this
State as anybody else can be, and We have
yet to hear any such testimony. 1t will
not answer our inquiry to say that the
Governor is generally believed to be bad;
that he has q reputation for this or that.
What We require is specific proof. If the
Bee can produce one witness to prove the
charge Of briboy against Governor War
moth, We will freely concede that he is
corrupt. But, until this is done, we shall
deem his detractors mere partisan SANDER
ers, who are unworthy Of belief. And we
have right to expect the Bee to be
equally fair. 1t discharges its duty to the
public when it gives currency to rumors
affecting the character of public officer.
But it fails in its duty to its fellow-men
when it accepts anonymous rumors for
facts, and does not endeavor to bring for
ward its witnesses, or, when having made
the attempt and failed, it still persists in
repeating the charges.
An opportunity was presented by George
NJ. Wickliffe for all those who knew any,
thing discreditable to the Governor
to come forward with their testimony.
That bafaed functionary presented about
forty charges against the Governor to the
House of Representatives, in January,
1870. He gave the names of more than a
hundred witnesses. Most of the charges
were of the wild and vague character that
mark those of the Bee of Friday, and
many of them were of similar import.
Wickliffe charged, among other things
That the Governor had received bride
or signing the Slaughterhouse bill;
That he received a large sum to veto the
Ship Island bill, and, subsequently, pro-
,ured its passage over the veto; =.
That he refused to sign the bill for the
elief of J. C. Kathman until the latter
greed to let DR.. Noyes have the biggest
hare of the proceeds;
That he demanded of Patrick Frizzell
$1,000 for signing a bill for extra COM
also, $50, of P. J. Kennedy
or the levee bill.
And so on, through long list of speci-
&c charges. the Governors alleged mis-
onduct was reported to the House, with
be names of the witnesses by which the
ccuser expected to sustain each item.
These proceedings were pending for
early two months. They were published
, all the world, SO that every man know
ag anything about the matters alleged
light come forward and testify.
The charges We're referred to a special e
ommittee, composed of four Republicans L
nd one Democrat The witnesses were .
ent for and testified before the commit ?
ee. The testimony was printed and laid
etore the House. And, what is remark
BILE, every witness who was called to the o
tand was placed there by the prosecutor d
he Governor did not introduce one in
is defense. And the result of all this Il
as that the committee submitted re-
ort to the House, signed by every men, =
er, which contained these words: I
Your committee beg leave to report. that