The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1875-02-24
FOR AND AGAINST.
The New Orleans Picayune is an

The New Orleans Picayune is an
advocate of the Wheeler ultimatum.
1t approved the vote of 3S members
of the Conservative Caucus adopting
that plan Of paci6cation. When the
Caucus rescinded its action-wisely
and periodically rescinded it-an-
other scheme, differing in every es-
sential feature from the Wheeler plan,
was proposed by the Caucus and re-
jected by Mr.. Wheeler, and of these
two schemes the Picayune says:
There is really so little difference be.
tween the two schemes, that for practical
purposes they may be considered identi-
cal. Any supporter of the Caucus propo-
sition might accept the Wheeler PROPOSE
ton without any sacrifice of principle or
of purpose.
Pity that the Picayune could not
have lent It's spectacles TO Mr.. Vince
Ter. If there is really so little differ
ence between the two schemes, it was
disobliging and pig-headed in Mr..
Wheeler TO reject CURLY by telegraph
a scheme so much like his own
What the Wheeler plan was has been
nowhere more plainly and more
truthfully stated than by the Plea
yune in more recent article:
But to enter the Hahn Legislature with
out any prospect of accomplishing good
result; without the smallest right to ex-
pect a restitution of the power which was
so tyrannically and outrageously snatcbed
away; to forogo dignity, ignore, insult and
purpose than that of personal pecuniary
advantage-that would, indeed, be base
and ignominous and inexcusable abandon
ment of principle--a humiliation to which
not a single one Of the Conservative mem-
bers could dream for one Instant Of de-
scending.
The New York Sun thinks the
Wheeler proposition was properly re-
jected, and thus comments on the
promises extorted from the Caucus
by the Committee, or rather by a
member Of it, for Mr.. Marshall, the
Democratic member, distinctly dis
claims any share in the negotiations
or approval Of them:
They have extorted from the claimants,
as o condition precedent, promise or
| agreement that if admitted to seats they
will act in certain matters ss the members
of this Congressional Committee desire
them to act-that is to say, that they will
recognize the Kellogg Government, and
that they will not impeach Kellogg for
anything that he has done.
| Have Mr.. Hoar and his colleagues re-
fected on the nature of the undertaking
in which they are engaged! They are
making contract with members Of a
State Legislature far the surrender of a
part of the power-the power of impeach-
ment-which the Constitution of the State
confers upon them. 1t is trade with
members of the Louisiana House of Re
representatives. for the REIMBURSEMENT of
one of their most important constitutional
functions. The Constitution of the State
not only confers the authority to impeach,
but it imposes the duty of impeachment in
cases where it is authorized and deserved.
The members on being admitted swear to
support.the Constitution; yet the Commit
tee of Congress wiring from them an agree
ment in advance that whether Kellogg de-
serves impeachment or not, and even al
though it becomes their sworn duty to
impeach him, they will nob do it. They
are to take the oath of Office with men
tai reservation; it is lie on their lips
Can there be . contract more clearly un-
constitutional, illegal and immoral than
thisi