The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-04-12


ablest writer in the South. The tone OF
his article on '"The Principle OF Democ-
racy and Taxation" is uneXccption-
able but certainly he has not been dis
ingenious in his argument. The Repuo-
Gcmt follows very closely his
line OF discussion, and Is espe-
ciaIIv strong on those points
designed to fix upon the DEMOCRAT tho
odium Of advocating property holding
aristocracy. The DEMOCRAT has never
printed a sentence that can be distorted
into an advocacy OF property quallll-
cation, or an aristocracy of any kind;
and that is weak cause whose strong
est advocates can mako no better dc-
tense Of 1t than m effort to force its OBJ
ponents into an unpopular and odIouS
position.
"Ancient Democrat is quite eXer-
cised over our observation that popular
elections arc always swayed, az
measure, by selfish motives and sense
Of irresponsibilty and he tells us this
is terrible judgment against our whole
system and powerful argument in favor
ola government by n minority or an arIs-
tocracy. We think we entertain as hlgh
an opinion OF the virtue Of mankind as
most men, but we have never acceded
to the proposition that the voice OF
the people Is the voice OF God. This
| is q good rallying cry for stump
speaker after q ward office, or some
| thing Of that sort; but thinking men
know it is folly; they know in fact that
a large element Of tho voting population
are always, in q measure, influenced by
selfish motives and a sense Of irrespon-
sbility. This is not the enuDciatlon OF
principle; it is a plain statement
Of fact which must be compre-
hendcd il we would lay down
sound governmental principles. IT is
fortunately true that the average Judg-
ments of the people are sound and
their general purposes patriotic. But,
| IL there were no restrictions to the popu-
lar will, often before the better judg-
ment of the people could assert itself
and the right be made clear the fury
and Injustice Of the hour would be dis
played in all their might and work dis
aster that could not be repaired. There
are few instances of governments based
exclusively on the will Of the majority
and the histories OF those few are hiSto-
ries of unbridled license and ferocity
The Revolutionary Government OF
France was the best example OF such
governmentas" Ancient Democrat ant
the Republican, would have us believe
| 90. -, uuCy vVuIt nave ~
The Revolutionary tribunal was The
style Of q court peculiar to such a Re
public. Barere and Fouquier Tinvill'
were sample Of it's judges, and Mara
and Danton of its statesmen. We Op
pose such government, and we repu
date any theory Of politics which would
il adopted, establish such q govern
ment. We believe there are such things
in government as inalienable rights
we believe there are rights which can
not be disturbed without destroying 50
ciety, and which are guaranteed by tn,
Constitution. These rights canno
, be touched by the majority
nor, indeed, can they be destroyed
or impaired by the courts. Among these
rights are those Of personal liberty, life
| and property. Disturb these, unsettlt
these, impair these, and you strike ;
blow at the very organization Of society
and take the first step towards reducing
the country to the level OF Mechanism
1t may be claimed, as by Ancient Dem
ocrat," that the property holders arr
selfish people, who will give nothing t
public enterprises and who will no
even exert their whole influence K
, establish q decent government in th'
State. This is, unfortunately, IN {
, measure, true, but only in a meas
, ure, and it must be admitted that thu
best hope of relieving the State from the
incubus of Radicalism is in the working
people, the poor men, the non property
holders. But it should be borne il
mind that the DEMOCRAT has made nc
argument in behalf Of property holders
as q class; we have made our argument
in behalf of society. Impair the rights
of property and the resultant evils will
af1lict the working people moro seri-
ously, if possible, than they will
the property holders. We stand for no
class, and against no class; we stand
only for what we believe to be the sound
principles of republican government.
The Republican makes very specious
point on the question OF minorities. It
says that in this country we have no
fixed minority; that the minority here
is constantly changing; that fixed
minority would be a hereditary nobil-
ity ; and it then proceeds to argue that
minorities have no rights except in a
country where the Divine right OF kings
is accepted. Says the Republican:
| 1t is very dangerous for either Republicans or
Democrats TO deny the superior virtue Of the
people over that of the kings For if the smaller
| number assume that ii is oppressive in the
| larger number to differ from them in vote to
whom is this minority to appeal? Not to the
majority, for it is, they say, tyrant. Not to
force, because that is peremptorily against
them. The minority can only appeal to that
Divine right to govern upon which reposes the
claim of the Stuart and the Bourbon.
This sounds very we'll; it is even in
genious; but it is very empty. The
attempt to identify the opinions of
Americans who believe in a constitu-
l a II