New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-25
iaiIL THE fHopH x6fEs

| cry Oh New OxlA NJ ok1bu .VOot31U0U0 70 :
connection vjtR t6e tade q The wes'
has aSakaasd- diacussion sof psinciplel
infinitely more important than the success
OF dsGsat Of The locd questions at issue.
Tho opponents q thsaiscGiption have
mot confined themselves. to- Tie inquiry
WHISTLER this would Be = judiciops contsi-
bation; but they boldly deny the powe Of
. majority Of the people to prescribe the
tenure or the taxation Of property.
We regret somewhat that this argument
pro and con should have BEEN principally
made by professional Advocates wehave
accepted the vtsws Of Mr.. Kennard, be-
cause they seemed TO- coincide With and
to strengthen our own. We, however, ad-
init thas they are subject to the sAike in
partial trial on their merits. In like man
ner, when Advocate Semmes who was, if
we mistake not, q member of the Confed-
crate Congress, advises his Southern
clients to object to Confederate soldiers as
unft to Try a whisky. case, We readily
separate the attorney ftom the man and
Recognize the justice of allowing the best
to be said in behalf of any cause without
holding the advocate to q personal n,
sponsibility for the morality Of lis argu-
meut.
We give to Advocate Eustis she benefit
Of this right to advance for his client doc
trines not ct all compatible with those ws
should expect from . representative Of
Democrktic principles. The opinions
which he advances are, however, those of
the Property Holders Association, and
their press organs, 80 that We shall con-
sider the argument not as his own, but -
that Of his clients. In doing so we shall |
confine ourselves to an examination of !
certain political doctrine-afiirmed- BY him
which may be stated as follows:
That there are reserved and inalienable |
rights in property over which 4 numerical |
majority can have no control
We have repeatedly requested those who
claim that property in the U6itsd States
any right except that given
it by the numerical. majority, to state
from what other source this right is de-
rived. MI. Eustis has by no means an
swered the question, but maintains the
opinion that the right Of property does
not come from the people. We can not
conceive Of right Of any sort antecedent
% OF Independent Of the formation Of
'ociety. We do not consider an opinion
! right. A right may be alone predicated
# that which may b., executed at the viii
4 him who possesses it This win may
70 executed in a. state Of nature by !
uperior physical force, and under any
osm of government by force Of law and ,
ublic authority. He who believes that
be right of property can assert Itself, has
,erely to trust his property in any COM /.
,unity without law to be disabused of his
rror. Mr.. Eustis has been SO imprudent ,
) to say that the trainers of the federal
onstitutioa' provided for the protection !.
personal rights, but that not having !;
foreseep what has occurred in this coun-
y. that the rights of property would be !;
and destroyed by mere ma i
rity undesa purely representative gov
nment, and that consequently you find
lrdly any safeguard to protect property ;,
,ainst the assumed power Of the vote by =
majority ofthe people or the Legislature. ;,
The constitution of the United States =
rows adequate safeguards around prop D
ty as well as persons. It especially de- !;
ares that representation and direct tax =,
ion shall be according to population. :,
was perfectly in the power of the good =.
ople, as they used to be called by DEM n
rats, to have seized on and confscated =,
the property Of the colonists at the :.
ose of the revolution. They did not -
en- confscate the property of the Tories. :.
Q suppose no one will say that these D,
yhts of property would have been re- :.
ected by England had she conquered -,
American colonists. Then the sseood r,
ople" of the revolution won that prop -
y, and voluntarily gave and guar -,
nteed it to those who possessed or might =,
sreafter possess it. The terms ssspo- ~,
ton of property, unlawful and "a =,
cious demands, licentious and law os
8 legislation" should scarcely be ~
edicated of people to whom all that is h;
st valued ofpersonal or property rights m,
due. Yet Mr.. Eustis applies these ev
rases to the people of Louisiana. There r.
been another great example of the ~,
apecity Of what the owner regarded as bo
perry to maintain its rights against r.
will Of the people. The whole slave no,
perry of the South was protected in its ;hl
racter by the constitutional protection de,
aded by ...the good people" Of the oa;
ted States. This PROPERTY removing ces
q one State, in which it was recog- pri
ID, toanother State in which it was he
owed its legality to.tne majority. of tur
people, When it was commended that shr
title of pdperty declared ESQ
me State could preserve its rights in = anc
tory, the majority Of the people de- aga
d that this rightslid not exist. be
herais still higher example of the sails
pacity of property to establish and tick
1tain its own status. Before the war tees