New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-01-20
THE RIGHT OF LOCAL SELF-dOVERN-
MENT.

The Democrat premises tuat III ouo
is claiming sovereignty for the city OF
New Orleans" This is concession
which the Mayor of the city has scarcely
authorized, and with the doctrine tnat
the city is not, as the Hanse towns LOT
merly were, sovereign, we can not see IN
what the Administrators deserve the very
harsh imputation conveyed in the follow
ing extract:
We can not be mistaken in saying that
the action of the city Administrators IN re-
gard to the taxes, the levy OF winch !ne
Mayor proposed to decline. has greatly dis
appointed public expectation. Iney were
elected as the representatives IT men strug-
Cling 70. freedom, and, it is to be re-
gretted, have proved themselves, IN the
opinion OF many, unequal to their afouous
but honorable position in this matter.
That the Administrators have not be-
lieved the city government sovereign, is
proved by the fact that while majority
of the members have shown themselves
opposed to levyipg tax for the city bond
interest, they have admitted the para
| mount power of the Legislature to pre-
| scribe that duty, and of the courts to
| compel its execution. The advocate OF
non-taxation also admits that the NUM-
cipal government is not sovereign. If,
then, the people living in the parish OF
Orleans have any abstra ct right OF local
government, we demand to know whence
it emanates. Is it derived from the origi-
nal municipal charter by the crown OF
France? No such right can be pointed
out under the reservations OF the deed OF
purchase. Rights of religious and po-
litical character were specified, which
have never been infringed. They fell
in under the inalienable rights OF the
American people, and were indeed an IN
necessary, though a natural reservation.
The paramount authority OF the people OF
Louisiana has been recognized by the
consolidation of the French municipah-
ties, and the present charter is an act OF
assembly which may be amended or re-
pealed, so far as it may not affect the
powers granted and vested by act Of the
Assembly itself. We restate the true re-
publican principle; from the ideal repub-
lie of Plato to the writings for which Al
gernon Sidney died, there had been men
who asserted that the people were the
source Of all power. No writer more
resclutely denied this doctrine than the
High Tory and infdel historian quoted
as authority for municipal rights IN
the article upon which we are COM
menting. The American republic has,
however, established the principle
of popular sovereignty and now none
may dispute it. II this doctrine be cor
rect it is the right Of the majority OF the
people to express its sentiment, or to
delegate its authority. How then could
anything less than a majority of whole
people have exclusive rights Of local self
government? Could thousand men as
semble upon any spot within the territory
of sovereign State, and prescribe the
limit of power which they shall them
selves possess, or which might be ex-
ercised over them by the majority of in
habitants of the State? Each Of these
thousand men possesses precisely the same
interest rights with any other men
living within the jurisdiction OF the State
The State can not derogate from these
rights. It has now been long time since the
man was an adscript Of the soil, or when
the feudal lord held rights in his baronial
manor, which were above the laws that
bind all the subjects Of the State. The
State may delegate to any community any
powers not incompatible with the rights
of other citizens. Nothing short of origi-
nal and abstract sovereignty in munich
pal district could authorize its Inhabitants
or authorities to impose upon any citizen
of the State prohibition to do any act
within their limits which he might have
done within any other part of the State.
The Administrators comprehend far bet
ter than their critics this commendable
subordination to law. They know that those
who have been authorized to elect them
have 90 power to protect them in case OF
violation of State law. There have been
affairs whose horns protected even convicts
from arrest. There have been in other
times and countries a nobility and a
priesthood, and chartered municipalities
and monopolies above the reach Of the law.
Every Administrator knows himself re-
sponsible to the laws he has sworn to obey,
and relies on no transatlantic traditions
drawn from the usages Of kings and popes
to guide him in the path Of duty. These
men know that those who voted for or
against them can not interpose for their
nrotection, nor can these constituents
compel the Administrator to execute the
law otherwise than as it is expounded to
his own intelligence and conscience.
If this reasoning be sound, then the
State government may devolve upon the
people living in local district the right
to assess the value Of their own property,
fix and levy their own taxes, appoint the
power TO protect their persons, Familiarity
called police, or the State may withhold
any and all these powers and cause them
to be performed by any other agency
which a majority Of the people of the
State may designate. We do not say that
the administration of each Of these duties
shonld not he RENTED to the peopla