The New Orleans Democrat., 1876-05-10
A yINDICATION.
What the House Has Done and Why II
Go uld Not do More.


Editor Democtat-The editor Of the
New Orleans Times, in its morning s
issue Of the 9Th instant, is extremely
severe upon the Democratic members OF
the last General Assembly, and states
positively that not one will ever again
be reelected by his constituents.
Its columns can speak kindly OF Kel-
logg, the usurper; Of Clinton and other
officials, whose preferment was not
secured by the popular will. but through
Federal interference: yet not one word
OF kindness can 1t utter for gentlemen
whose honor and integrity are up-
questioned, and whose efforts were
earnestly exerted in endea.voring to
abolish the Returning Board" and give
to the people the sole right to select the
officials OF the parishes and OF the State.
This was the popular demand. We
sought to crafty 1t. II was essentially
lust we aimed to secure IL. And yet.
forsooth. because we demanded this
right which was promised when the ad-
justment was agreed to- and was one OF
the main reasons entering into its con
summation, we are termed revolution
lists and disorganizers!
We passed an act taking from the
Executive the immense patronage he
has so long welded. and by the arbi-
trary use Of which he has perverted the
purposes Of his office and controlled the
legislation OF the State, we passed an
act by which the police would have
been rendered an efficient force
and the city Of New Orleans
saved the expense OF at least $3.50. 900 !.
we passed an act by which the schools
would have been rescued from the
hands of the mere politicians and placed
under the control OF intelligent and
worthy citizens we introduced acts by
which the fees Of the sherffs and the
clerks of the criminal courts would be
materially reduced. thus saving to the
city of New Orleans fully 100000. Is
1t for actions such as these that the
Times can give expression only to a
sneer and pronounce SO positively our
political doom?
Under the Speakership Of Michael
Hahn. and the influence of such men as
Lowell. Devices, Matthews, Hunsacker,
Keeting Demas, and others. foisted into
power by Federal bayonets. what were
the contingent expenses OF the House.
and the aggregate expenditure as
authorized by the general appropriation
act of the regular session of 1875
Will the editor Of the Times institute
comparison between the regular ses
sion OF 1875 and that Of 1876. and answer
II the saving Of more than S45O.0O0. and
combining the appropriation largely
within the revenues OF the State. does
not entitle the representatives OF the
Democratic party to some slight degree
Of praise.
Have we done but little. the reason
was not because the proper bills failed
to pass the House. 1t was because a
weak and vaeillating Executive and q
Radical Senate failed to render any as
sistanee in the work of reform.
Reform meant the abandonment of pa
tronage and the destruction Of the
sources Of their ill-gotten gains, none Of
which would Radical Senate consent
to abandon.
We may have done but little, but we
were effective in checking the practice
OF bribery. The Board of Audit. as
under the Hahn House. was
in its aim to punder
and fictitious claims, for
which amount they were hasten
ing to approve. We were instrumental
in breaking up corrupt Radical rings
and preventing prominent Radical
leaders from again depicting the treas
ury as for previous years, under the
forms Of law, they had been wont to do
la it for actions such as these the editor
the Times condemns lis
If SO we must bear his cens,lrc as best
we may. If. like him we were disposed
TO look into the heart and interpret
we might recall tho past and
answer back. Accused Of taking ad-
vantage Of circumstances to enrich
thyself. what right hast thou to be the
accuser of other mem physician.
heal thyself. MEMBER or THE HOUSE.