New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-03-28
wro 1rgpuT1ED TIT

customed to do the fint-tlpped Arrows VI
q savage.
We never use abusive epithets. They
would prevent our opponents from read
ing our arguments. This we wish them
to do, and do not think it would attain
our purpose to preface an address to the
Jury of our countrymen with the assertion
that more or less of their number were
knsves. 1t used to be an old trick to de-
nounce all who dissented from orthodoxy
as ''heretics." That charge implied the
want on the part Of the dissenter of all
pretensions to truth. This conviction es-
lished in the mind Of the public, victory
was assured.
The Democrat has concluded that voters
acho hold no real property should not be per-
,nisted to impose by their uote tao upon the
rea! property Of others for the construc-
ton Of railroad. Is this denied? 1t is,
apparently, from the writings Of the Demo-
crat. If the non-property holder be ad-
mitted by the Democrat competent voter
on this proposition, why has it raised the
question of authority to vote on the rail
road subscription at all?
The Democrat abandons the position
which its articles assume oy saying:
What the Democrat affirms now. and
affirmed in the quotation the REPUBLICAN
makes from its columns, ie, that the rights
nT tod hu
tor, and that there is no power in the ma
jori,y to destroy or impair those rights.
Have all those columns of epithet and
obloquy been uttered by the Democrat in
support of proposition which no Repub-
lican ever did or, indeed, ever could deny.
THE rights Of property" are protected by
the constitution undoubtedly. Who on
earth ever disputed this cardinal canon of
republican doctrine. The federal consti-
tuition apportions representatives and
direct taxes among the several States &C.
cording to their respective numbers. Our
State constitution requires taxation upon
property to be ad valorem, and both Of
these instruments grant protection to
property from abuse or encroachment.
Thus far we agree with the Democrat.
How is it possible for :'the majority to de-
stroy or impair those rights?" There are
courts under both constitutions to which
appeal is made to decide whether
these rights, as secured by the constitu-
ton, have been violated by the law. On
der the constitution, the majority can not
violate the rights which the majority has
itself granted and guaranteed by the con-
stitution.
In the case under argument, if the DEM
ocrat thinks fireman, who owns no house,
has no right to vote for tax on the prop
erty be is walked up at midnight to protect,
let it say so. Make the point that the
vote of the houseless fireman is void IN
der the constitution. Let the courts or
Legislature decide that the houseless fire.
man had no vote to put tax on houses,
and we would sustain the authorities in
their construction Of the right. So, with
the modification claimed by the Democrat,
there seems nothing in dispute, and it will
admit the right Of the houseless man to
vote tax on houses, subject to the con-
stitution.
We are glad to see this admission, be-
cause it places the Democracy on new and
more tenable and less radical ground. 1t
has been for some years past contended
that ''the people" or the majority of citi-
zens-of Louisiana are opposed to certain
measures of law and to certain acts of
administration. Under this claim there
have been several pronounced efforts to
set aside the authority Of government by
the acts of this assumed majority. The
Democrat boosted that ten thousand men
would have maintained the Speaker Ct the
House Of Representatives in the executive
Office.
Whether these men were altogether
citizens or in part aliens, we do not know.
Whether they were men without property
and, therefore, not qualified to tax prop
erty to build railroads, we can not tell.
They may have been, in Democratic opin-
ion, good enough to overturn govern
ment, and yet without the right to build
railroad in part with the money levied
by taxation upon the property of others.
In this case the Democrat assumed that
the majority Of the people represented by
this armed force should decide by mus
kerry question properly cognizable only
by the courts and Legislatures Of the
federal and State governments. This same
majority of the people was rep
by armed numbers on the four
tenth Of September, 1874. The revolu-
tionary doctrine now disavowed by the
Democrat was then held, and it was
claimed that there aoas power in the ma
jority to destroy or impair rights claimed
under the constitution. It may be pos
sibly instructive that if the young martyrs
Of misguided advisers could to-day return
to life, the votes of those among them
who hold no property might be challenged
by the Democrat if offered upon propo-
sition to tax the property of those who
sent them to battle and to death.
Iii tempered people rarely see more
than the red rag which excites their hos
tility, nor perceive the precipice over
which they may fall in the blind pursuit
OF partisan hatred. The Democrat has
contradicted the basis principles Of all
democracy. 1t has assailed universal
SuUfaQe. Lit has licrn1,Aod thu ~