New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-01-26

What we have contended for and often
found fault about with a portion OF the
community for was that it would not hear
the facts, but contented itself with accept
ing garbled and unreliable reports, and
upon these proceeded to make up opinions
that We're as injurious to itself as they
were hostile to us and to the truth. And
herein the people who committed this
error gave evidence Of their incapacity for
self-government, for they ran counter to
their own interests and to the interests of
every member Of society by acting upon
false and probably wicked suggestion
when their highest and easiest duty was
to learn the truth before they concluded
what to do.
All of which is Introductory to an argu-
ment which we intend to submit upon a
statement of facts that all parties are
familiar with. When the Senate met on
the first Monday in January, it was the
duty of every member to be in his place,
as all will admit Sixteen Senators chose
to absent themselves upon the plea that
their desire for the reform Of certain meas
ures could not be carried out at that time,
owing to the fact that one or two Senators
were absent. Subsequently these absentees,
who had been detained away, made their
appearance, and still the reform Senators
refused to assemble in their seats, land they
rigidly adhered to this determination for
sixteen days. This is one circumstance
that we offer for the consideration
of the people, for it must be borne
in mind that the pretext which was
put forth against the meeting of
the Senate was that owing to the absence
of certain gentlemen, the measures of re-
form that were contemplated could not be
etfectuated as that body would then be
constituted. The refusal to meet then,
when the absentees did arrive, proves that
something else than reform was contem-
plated. Another fact that must not be
omitted is this, that the reforms which
these fugitive Senators said they wanted
were specific and positive, to wit: the re-
peal of the registration, election, con-
stabulary and printing laws, and the modifi-
cation of the Metropolitan Police law.
This was what they demanded, and be-
cause they could not get it was the written
and official reason that they gave why they
absented themselves from their seats.
Ultimately Senator Thomas appeared in
the Senate and took his seat, as he was
bound to do by his oath Of Office. Then
what? Strange to relate, the very Sen
ators who had been accused Of opposing
reform at once, and without excitement,
not only voted to repeal all the objection
able laws against which the reformers
were pledged, but they gave assurance
that any other Objectionable law that
needed amendment or repeal would be re-
pealed or amended if the reformers would
only come forward, take their seats, and
show wherein they were anxious to benefit
the people. Was there ever such pune
ture administered to self-asserted reform
before?
Senator Thomas after having assisted
the non-reformers to bring about reform,
weakly withdrew after one days service,
and the Senate was again broken Of a
quorum. He joined the absentees, who
still persist in demanding the repeal of
laws that had already been repealed Thus
the Senators who were pledged to reform
were eclipsed by those who had never
made any such professions, but who testi-
fed to their honesty and patriotism by
donna that which their absent associates
were only talking about. These are facts
that the public is acquainted with, if it
knows anything reliably; and on this
statement of historical events we demand
of reasonable men conclusion that BELTS
their asserted and acknowledged ability to
make up their own opinions about political
matters.
Why did the Senators remain away
when it was plainly in their power to carry
out the very reforms which they declared
it to be their sole and only end to accom-
plish? Why did they absent themselves
when it was within their reach to ascer-
tain that every measure Of amelioration
which they had to propose would be &C
cepted and concurred in by those Senators
who remained faithful to their posts while
the quorum Of the Senate was broken 2
Our conclusion is that they had another
purpose than the reform which they
cozened the people with, for if they had
not had another purpose and one, too,
which they We're afraid to publish
to the world, why did they
not go boldly forward and vote
to repeal the objectionable laws; or, being
outgeneraled in that by the sudden action
of the Senate, why did they not enter the
Senate after the reforms which they de-
handed had been accomplished by those
very Senators whom they had implicitly
accused of being opposed to reform ?
Their demand was specific, and the cor
rection was equally So After the evils
against which they protested had been
abolished, they had no single defense for
their longer abstention from their duties,
unless they had "a reason which they did
not give to the public
Under these circumstances, they lost the
credit which they pretended to covet, of
being the only reformers in the State, for