New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-23
THE SOUTH TO BE pIsFRAHCF1sED FOB
HER VOTE ON THE CURRENCY,

| tunity OF wall StfeeC, ana ada 70 the ma
. tional circulation the exact amount that
Wall street had reproached the President
for thewan of power to issue, the money
power dared to insult the country. Il
threatened through its mouthpiece, Sena-
tor Sargent, that if the currency should
be enlarged the maritime and capital
States of the Atlantic and Pacific would
form an, "alliance against the Western
and Southern States"
A tremendous pressure is brought by
the money monarchs to bear upon the
President, which has succeeded so tar
that he is as silent as on the eve OF any
great battle, and as resolute as when
after the Wilderness he gave the order to
march on Richmond. Failing in this
quarter, the money monarchs have in
voked the aid of the Hessian press. The
New York Herald writes On Louisiana
The Southern States and the Nations
Obligations" The object of this article
seems to be to disable the Southern States
representation in Congress, and SO in
crease the prospect of repeating the bill
if the President shall signi it.
We regret the tone of argument en-
ployed by a paper of large circulation,
edited by writer's the born subjects OF
king, and wholly ignorant of Republican
theory. The Herald argues that the policy
of the government should determine
whether the people of State should be
allowed to exercise their rights, and it
would rule the States Of the South out of
| Congress Just as an absolute monarch
would admit or exclude from the national
council refractory provinces.
The Herald first states that it was once
| in favor of any measure of relief against
the Kellogg government. But, in view of
the late vote on an increase of currency,
which it calls 'the light of new facts" it
reconsiders the position, and proceeds to
examine what Louisiana might do with
her representatives in Congress, even if
McEnery should be installed in Office.
1t asks before vote on the Louisiana
election
Does the South mean to give its support
morally and politically to the movement for
the reputation of the national debt.
And if the votes are to be cast against
Wall and State streets, inquiries:
Is it not wise to bave as few votes from
the South as possible in the United States
Senate or elsewhere!
Should this vote be adverse to these
ruling interests, it demands to know:
And instead of assisting Louisiana to q |
sound social and political condition, should |
we not rather desire that States now fully |
represented might, by such facts as are on
foot in Arkansas, justify the occupation Of |
tional troops!
That is, unless these States shall give |
guarantees to remit the fiscal policy Of the |
government to the money kings, these
States shall be declared under martial lew
and brought under military government
Has such doctrine ever been advanced
under a representative government? The
Herald had just said:
As there was no resistance to federal law
in Louisiana, as the people all declared
themselves equally loyal, and as the State
had formally accepted and ratified the
changes made in the national constitution
by the war, and with the pledge of their
honor had given the only possible guarantee
that they would accept in good faith the
results OF the war and all the acts done in
the name Of the nation as their acts-in
view of all this it seemed to us that national
interference in the concerns OF that State,
the pretense of the general government t.
dress the balance OF local politics for or
against one or another party, was an in
iquity of the greatest magnitude, and no
more to be justified in the case of Louisiana
than it might be in the case of party dis
pute in our own State.
And next it insists that these same States
are so disloyal as to ask for more currency
as a means of destroying the national
credit and thereby repudiating the ma
tional debt. Upon this charge the South
ern States are to be DISTINGUISHED and put
in the guard house They are to have no
vote in the national council, and if Gen
eral Grant should sign the currency bill,
and be again before the people as a can
didate, these Southern States could not be
allowed to come to the polls.
But if this vote be a proof of Southern
disloyalty, what does it prove as to the
West? The West and Northwest passed
the currency bill. Should these States
be put under martial law? Should mill
tary Governor and a provost marshal oc-
cupy Chicago, Milwaukee and st. Louis?
Yet such is the penalty meted out to the
contumacious advocates of an increased
currency by the Wall street organ.
But upon what proof rests the insinua-
ton that the Southern States mean ''to
invalidate the national currency"
We have already seen that the South
votes with unaninity for initiation, and that
it means to invalidate the national cur
rency and put our debt, if possible, side by
side with the debt Of the Confederate
States.
Where is that declaration? What res
olution of what body-what avowal of
what man-gives warrant for so purely
Herdldic proclamation? There is no such
evidence cited or citable. The very words
of the article convict its writer of a wan
ton and absurd SANDER If the Southern
people only accepted the amendment of
the constitution declaring the inviolabil-
ity of the federal debt, in order that they |
could have +''the power and the POSSIBLE
ity of recovering all the rights of the
States, why should they wish to repu-
date the natinnal deht2 The article