New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-06-10
TIE ARIsToORAOY AMONG THE DEK00-
RACY.

In the very 1ncOu8TuOuS pOAtAcaA 6oAoDo
called Democracy there are some very
pungent ingredients which neutralize en-
tirely the ancient character of the dish
itself. To think of q Democrat contend
ing that property and intelligence should
govern numbers would have excited the
horror of those who founded Democracy.
Yet We have actually seen argument made
| in Democratic organ to prove an inher-
! ent sovereignty in corporation, and 4
claim that political rights are not derived
from the people themselves, but some
other source not clearly defined. In the
theory of Topsey, we ''spec they growed. ="
Democracy has denounced the rule of the
majority and demanded that the minority
in numbers shall define its own rights
and construction OF its own compacts.
One fact evident from such doctrine is
that in the indiscriminate CONSUMPTION of
all withoutinquiry into actual or antecedent
opinion the Democracy has here admitted
aristocrats in disguise who persist in car
rying out their native doctrines under the
force of an organization in theory oppo-
site to their own. These aristocrats have
by no means been guilty of deception.
The Democracy has proclaimed that it
is for anybody or anything that will beat
the Republicans out of Office. It takes
the initiative, then, as it took Horace
Greeley, without any remuneration OF its
principles. What are the principles Of
the Democratic aristocrat? That the av-
erage man is untitled for self-government,
and that aristocracy is only justified in &C
cepting the suffrage of such constitu-
ency for the protection Of property and
the control of official patronage.
An attempt to assert this doctrine
has been exposed in recent proposal to
bestow upon the few the exclusive power
to nominate all State and parish officials.
The Times having called attention to
this violation of the Democratic princi-
pies, publishes An anonymous defense of
the proposal. 1. 1t is claimed that those
delegates elected by the people to nomi-
nate State officers are equally fit to choose
district officers. 2. That this general and
irrevocable letter of attorney, is proper to
defeat the professional politician and
selfish schemer and place seeker"
What is the first argument save an as
sumption of superior integrity in the few?
What is it but distrust Of the American
principles of choice by popular election?
The second objection to popular election,
displays q distrust of the people, based
avowedly upon their alleged incompetency
to choose proper district representatives.
What will the reader think of such
phrases as follow applied to the Democra-
tic voters of New Orleans? "The profess
sional politician, ward hummer and sell
fish schemer" knows
That to the primary election first held for
delegates to the State Convention Q much
larger number of business men and pro-
pos " h.la.-. will cUn4e, ond that the class
Of delegates elected to the State COnvrn.
ton are those whom he can not control las
. general thing) for his own selfish ends.
It is assumed that very few business
men and property holders can be brought
out to attend the second or district con-
ventions:
There is almost q certainty of the bum
mers' clique securing the delegation to the
parish convention. At this convention the
more offices there are to be filed the better
chances are there for the bummers to swap
off to suit. Here are several cliQues all for
one man for sheriff, and there one or two
for Q certain man for Judge of one of the
courts, while over yOnder are four or five
delegates for their man AZ Representative.
This is your professional politicians and
bummer's chosen field, and the more offices
you give them to swap for, by just SO much
do you increase his chances tor complete
success.
We see it claimed by the organ of De-
that
Democracy, chastened and purified by
the long years of tribulation and disaster
through which the people have passed I'M
der Radical rule, is the only arm strong
enough to redeem the country.
Now we ask ourselves, can this be the
Democracy purified? Can it be possible
that Democrats are "bummers," that
Democrats would ''swap off" their votes;
that Democrats are professional politi-
clans, selfish schemers and place seekers?"
Yet that such is the material employed in
Debating parish nominations, is openly |
asserted on behalf of the aristocratic dele
gates to vote upon the State nominations.
This reasoning is aristocratic in its very
'ophistry. It manifests as much con-
;empt for the reason Of the people as for
he rights of the people. It is assumed |
hat the State Offices are so much more |
than the parish offices that |
the business men and property holders"
considered as a superior
outrage, will attend the primary meet
ngs of delegates to the first, when they
IAN not be expected to attend the election
% the second.
If we grant the disparaging PROPOSE
ion that men of property and business
My attend the choice of delegates in
which their interests are involved, we
you'd without hesitation claim that the
of this patriotic principle
would induce them to attend the parish
primaries. At these elections are to be
hosen the judges of life, character and
tile; the clerks who keep the records;
be sheriff who is to collect and account
or their debts, and the Representatives
Tho are to legislate upon their most