New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-09-10
ETHICS VS.. LOGIC,

lIOu1 tIC Duttttbt'
Some weeks ago New Orleans paper, the
reputed organ of the Governor of the State,
defending this eminent public functionary
from specific charges of actual corruption,
and referring to the allegation that in GER
tain case he proposed to sell his signature
to a bill for higher price than was offered,
saw fit to remark that it was unimportant
whether he wanted more or not, since he
did not accept bride of any amount.
We have more reasons than one for as
Stunning that the ''reputed organ of the
Governor" alluded to is the REPUBLICAN,
though we have never published such a
sentiment as is here charged. In the
REPUBLICAN Of August 16, we reviewed
Mr.. Carriers card, and endeavored to re-
flute the charges and inuendos therein
against the Governor. The following is
what we said:
Certain parties offered to bride the Gov
ernor of the State to sign bill he thought
| iniquitous. They offered him S50,0O which
he declined to accept. 1t Is not very mate
rial to the controversy to know whether the
Governor wanted more or not. 1t is admit
ted that he did not accept the offer
The logical reader will perceive at a
glance the difference between what we
did say and what the Bulletin assumes
that we said. The offer Of bride was
admitted, not for the purpose of indorsing
it as legitimate means of influencing
executive action, but for the higher aim
of proving that the officer who refused
and published it was more fully entitled
to credit and credibility than the party who
offered it. The ethics of this matter is
one thing, and the logic is another. No
man will openly defend bribery, and this
is the ethical side of the question. But
when it is narrowed down to simple
question Of logic whether bride was Of
fered and rejected, whether because the
amount was insufficient or the officer too
honest to accept it, the rules of logic ap-
ply in order to settle matter of verac1ty
as between the party making the offer
and the officer who refused to be cor
rupted. We assumed that bride of fifty
thousand dollars was rendered to the Gov
ernor, and we still further assumed tn I.
because he refused it, and made the offer
public, that therefore he was more fully
entitled to be believed than the party who
approached him. Tie logic of this is
that there was nothing to compel the
Governor to refer to this subject, if there
was any fact connected with the refusal
which would throw discredit upon him in
connection Herewith. The bill had passed
the Legislature, and was without single
open and avowed opponent il the State.
1t proposed to benefit large number of
very respectable people 1t proposed to
put money in the pockets Of an important
and powerful company. Personal friends
of the Governor were interested in its
success, Amid the general silence, what
but high sense of public duty impelled
the Governor to resist its success? He
had everything to make, including fifty
thousand dollars, and nothing to lose ex-
cept his sense of public duty. He main
tanned his character as an honest man,
and sustained his reputation as states
man by refusing to sanction the bill, and
in doing so he gave such good reasons
for his actions that no man now questions
their soundness. He denied that it was
either right or polite for the State Of
Louisiana to improve a street in the city
of New Orleans in front of the property
of men amply able to pay for their own
pavements. He took this ground alone,
unaided and uncounseled by the parties
who are now the loudest in his abuse. He
took it, when he could have pursued a
quieter and far more popular course by
signing the bill or by allowing it to
become a law. He made enemies and
refused an enormous bride in order to
protect the public property. And in order
to bring this array of arguments to bear
upon the question of credibility, it was
necessary to admit that a bride was
offered. Having admitted the attempt to
corrupt, having denounced its immortality,
We QeLuauu6u L1db do DetWccu GAS OuCCl
who refused to be bribed and the party
who made the offer, the Governor, who
held to his duty and his integrity, was
more entitled to belief than the author
of the corrupt proposition This is the
logic of the controversy. We assumed a
state of facts, in order to demonstrate a
question of honesty, and the Bulletin,
which has never had word of condemna-
ton for the unjust law nor its improper
advocate, now seeks to mislead the public
into the belief that the REPUBLICAN rather
winked at the propriety of bribipg Gov
errors, and was only solicitous that the
amount should be sufficient. We con-
denim the entire business, but especially do
we condemn that organism which palliates
corruption by abusing the man who re-
fuses to be corrupted. And thus the Bul.
lstin has done By distorting the logic OF
this case against the Governor.
PERRT'S VICTORY,
This day ffty-eight years ago the battle
| Of Lake Erie was fought between the