New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-11-21
EQUAL RIGHTS AND EQUAL REsP0Asl'
4afTYTYES. @ass's 5sa9ass -- e' =

Picdynne, especially II II oo en'A0'J
stracted from any political bearing. The
proposition is distinctly stated and the
argument always respectable and without
sophism.
The article, however, in correction and
condemnation of Vice President Wilson's
version of the labor laws of Louisiana does
injustice to history, as well as to the real
motives of the people who passed them
Before stating what those laws really were
we may state impartially what was tne
state of sentiment in the South in respect
to emancipation. There vase natural re-
luctance to yield control OF valuable
property in labor. There was also an ap-
prehension that the social DISCRIMINATION
might produce disturbance and even dam
ger.
This the statesmen of the period pro-
posed to counteract by laws which should
continue the subordination Of the ex-slave
to the ex-mssters. They thus enacted
according to the construction of North
ern man and of Northern men, "a system
of laws to Cypress the blacks and deprive
them of their rights, which made their
conditions worse than slavery itself, and
these laws and this sentiment made the
counteractive system known as the state
constitutional amendments OF 1865 ana
1870. with the civil rights acts Of 1901.
The people of the South did not compre-
bend the full effect of the federal constltu-
tional amendm ents of 1865. repeating all
bondage and exacting equality. Had the
state Of opinion been in 1865 even what 1t
is now in the South, the latter amend
ments and laws might never have been
necessary. They were brought upon the
South as consequence of mistaken Judg-
ment, and were deemed necessary to pro-
tect tho colored race from laws which the
great mass of Southern planters would
now be unwilling to submit to it. Our rea-
son for this last remark is that the great
mass Of the Southern planters are satisfied
with voluntary labor, and would prefer to
keep that market free, nor run the risk OF
driving away the colored laborer, or OF
giving a monopoly Of the labor to men
richer and more influential than them
selves. Whatever the motive Of the Leg
lslature of 1865 the fact is undoubted that
it was systematic. and intended to affect
the then existing relation between capital
and labor. In making this statement we
controvert the declamatory allegation OF
the Picayune, that this legislation was ''the
mere Offering of these laws-they never
went into effect" We are arguing the
motives which made these laws, which are
still spread upon the statute book, over the
official signatures of gentlemen, two Of
whom are still active Democratic politi-
clans.
That this system of laws was opposed
to sense of natural justice shown
by disapproval here as we'll rs by the
ayowed sympathies of Northern Republi-
cans, is shown by the following summary:
l. The act of 1856 in relation to crimes
and punishments was so amended as to
constitute new class of Migrants, to wit:
A person who, having made a contract for
labor should abandon his employer before
such contract expired, was deemed to
h I'VE committed misdemeanor, punish
able by fine or hiring to the best bidder,
or placed on the public works.
2. Any one who should entice or per-
suade away any person held to such labor
contract shall be deemed likewise guilty
and punished in like manner as the
labor vagrant The title to this act was
of its policy. 1t was to pun
ish persons for ''tampering with, or en-
ticing away, harboring, feeding OF secret
ing laborers, tenants or apprentices.
3. 1t was made the duty of the authori-
ties to apprentice all minors whose guar
dams shave not the means or refuse to
provide for their maintenance. This ap-
was described according to
the terms of the civil law, which regards
the apprentice as ''free servant, and
though in its general terms kind and just,
had yet some unpalatable provisions, such
as capturing" servants who ''abscond,'
compelling them to pay two days labor
for every day of absence, and rather ignor-
ing the habeas corpus act
1. There was further act 'to punish
in certain cases the employers of laborers
or apprentices. 1t provided that any
person who shall employ any laborer or
who is already under any con-
tract for services for any period of time to
any other person 50 as to deprive such
other person of the services of such laborer
or apprentice shall be held and deemed
guilty OF misdemeanor, punishable by
fine and imprisonment.
This was certainly systematic effort to
establish relations which would have made
a monopoly in the labor market for the
large planters. They, no doubt, consld-
cred it necessary to justify the continued
culture of their estates. The system,
however, by no means suited the vagrant
farm laborer, or the small planter who
wished the right to hire any one he
wished, without going to Jail about it.
1t alarmed the colored people, because
the child might be taken from the help
less paren. and assigned to labor tor
others.
1t is g curious fact that England has
enacted a statute which also declares the