New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-19
mlLB1ABIH R1oHrs.

if it considers property of more conse
. quence than people? Is it REASONABLY
that We should be exasperated that Their
should be those who will accept tn
mental labor, and political representation
, Of the majority of human beings in tn
State, and yet deny the rights which tn
majority of the whole people have give,
these peoplea Each idea should have it
representatives, the right of property t.
I send men to war and to fires and ordel
them away from the polls when tax il
proposed on the property they are relied
on to protect. should have its representa-
tives. They have been described Us "a
seif-constituted association, arrogating tt
itself portion of the powers distributed
by law between these three departments
The idea should have its organ. 1t is the
New Orleans Picayune.
The P;cayune is also in error to ques.
ton our right to champion 'the rights
and privileges Of the majority" 1t is
complimentary in saying that We are
Altogether unable to understand the
principle 90 clearly expressed by Mr.. JEFF
| fers0n that all men fare endowed by their
Creator with certain i,alienable rights"
All the disparaging epithets with which
the Picayune seeks to break the force of
argument will not prove its allegations
nor vindicate itself from the belief that it
has ''been advocating class legislation and
property qualification"
We have affirmed that the minority in
numbers holding q farm or religious
faith derived those rights from the con-
cession of the paramount power of gov
eminent. We may agree that this propo-
sition is correct by showing that these
rights of property or opinions possessed
an inherent ability to maintain their exer-
else, there would be no need Of any gov
eminent to recognize or enforce them.
! The assertion of the right would insure
| its exercise.
The Christian alien landing in Turkey
could worship God as he chose; the
owner of cargo, contraband under the
laws of England, could plead an inalien-
able right of property. Indeed. if the
Picayune will regard the meaning of the
word inalienable it will perceive that it
implies no such inviolability. It simply
means that no human being can ALLEVIATE
or divest himself of his life and liberty.
It by no means asserts that anybody else
is bound to assert these rights for him.
If this government should fall into |
anarchy tomorrow, the rights which q
man can not sell or give away would be
worth very little under the sway of die
tator or brigand.
We have asked the Property Holders
Association and its organ to show whence
these inalienable rights are derived? We
are told that they are bestowed by the
Creator. Now, Mr.. Jefferson does not
say this. He says that the rights of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are
the inalienable gifts of the Creator. The
rights of property, he contended, was not
Of divine origin, but the gift of the people,
which neither kings nor priests could
invade without the consent of the people
through their representatives.
We deny, then, that the rights of the
property holders are divine, derived from
source that can neither be questioned nor
resisted.
Every one of the rights approved by
he declaration of independence had been
1enied to the American colonists. These
lights could not have asserted themselves;
hey were inalienable, but they were not
ndefeasible, or there would have been no
heed to declare them, or to have fought q
'even years war for their establishment.
some of these inalienable rights were de-
he'd by the King, the aristocracy and the
PRIESTS. They were granted, and owe
heir present existence to the majority OF
he American people. If they come from {
ny other source it will be easy to show it.
We find yesterday the same question of t
'nde derivatur stated and discussed by I
Ion. Mr.. Kennard in his argument to
rove the rights of the majority to impose
tax on the property of the minority. He t
commences thus: q
l propose to argue the case upon the con. q
dtution and the law ~ they are, and pro t
ose to show that the constitution and the | y
w, - they are, are right. The entire ar &
ument has been addressed to your honor
: though you were sitting before the r
d0ptiOn of any constitution or any stat =
tory law. 1 propose to shoe that If tie I
2ctrincs announced in this discussion 6v the O.
he, side scerc at all tenable. no government n
any kind, more especially "a republican :
'cernment could have an eristence. B
MI. Kennard then proceeds to meet the m
gument of the Picayxne and the tax re- Il
sters: a,
Now, We are told, and this is at the OF
undation of all their errors, that this is an :.
vasi0n of the inalienable rights of the tar 10
yer. In this assertion is involved pop- q
ar heresy, the correction Of which woufd | til
neit the people of the State, and of this
hole country, immensely. There is no
Oh thing as an alicnable right in govern W
INT, except such a. are guaranteed bv the ~
Institution and the laws under which We
.. mean that there lie no such thing as tn
egal ilienable right-an inslienable right be
pable of enforcement by law. Every So -,
lied snalienable right outside of that W
tegory is . right of Notwithstanding
re and nothing less. co
We have nothing to add to this defini- an
n of inalienable rights. Mr.. Kennard ne
%, and proves. that these rights owe Wis
So l.. l.