The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-07-18
ss7S
SILLY BRAVADo.

/ During the very remarkable discussion
which preceded the adoption of the article re-
ported by tho Judiciary Committee making
| the judges Of the district courts in New Or
leans appointive, Mr.. Blanchard, Of Caddo,
| INDUCED in bit OF bravado and gaseonade
| which might as well have been dispensed
| with. We alIude to the boast which he Is re-
ported to have made, that ''the State was
Democratic no matter how the city might 90"
The question before the Convention was the
amendment offered BY Or. Robertson, MAX
ing the city judiciary elective as ii the coun-
try districts In advocacy Of his amend
ment Dr. Robertson had said that It was not
his purpose Ia Offering it to interfere with the
plans Of city delegates, but he believed that
the discrimination proposed would result In
the intrusion Of purely local question into
the politics Of the whole State, and upon any
measure calculated to have this effect he con-
ceved that he had a perfect right to enter
tain and express his opinions. He declared
that he chad the utmost confidence In
the people Of New Orleans, and was
willing to trust them to elect all
their officers If this discrimination was
made the Democratic electors In this city
would carry the question into the State con-
ventions and present slate to the candi-
dates for Governor and make it precedent
condition for their votes that they should
agree to appoint the judges that were named.
This was the provocation that elected Mr..
Blanchard's remark, an asseveration which
had no connection whatever with the matter
at issue, and which cannot be sustained either
by the past political history Of the State Or
the existing condition Of affairs.
It Is very easy matter to cast up the
account, and for Mr.. Blanchard's special in
formation we shall proceed to do this. In
1872 1t required the 10000 Democratic major
ity Of New Orleans to elect McEnery by a
majority OF GG00 votes. In 1874 the city had
to negative much larger Radical majority
from the country, her solid and reliable 10000
majority coming Id to elect Moncure by d bare
majority Of 1900.
ID 1876 the same old story was repeated
when Nichols came to New Orleans with
Packard 1000 votes ahead, to be elected by her
solid 10000 majority by 5000 votes.
These are the facts and figures which Mr.
Blanchard has to overcome In order to make
his boast good as to the past. AS to the flu
ture, there Is certainly nothing In the present
outlook to justify the assertion that the DEM
ocratic party can afford to dispense with or
antagonize the vote Of New Orleans. There
has never been time since reconstru ction
began when the party Ia this State was more
seriously divided and Its discipline more i'm
paired by multiplicity Of conflicting views
and interests than at this very time. This
same overweening and baseless confidence
ipcrf Mr arI' Of
Is itself the source Of our greatest
danger. We already hear Of grow
ing disposition among the people Of
the country parishes to throw off party
organization and discipline, and go into the
next election for local officers, at least, divided
into innumerable personal folloWings. The
argument used to justify such q course is that
the Republican party Is dead it will make no
nominations, and, therefore, the Democrats
should make none, leaving each individual
aspirant to make stand on his own merits
and make his own combinations-in short, as
Mr.. Blanchard says, 'the State is Democratic
no matter how the city may 60" and
the field should be left open for
independent candidates. Such al
policy Is bound to result In disaster, and I'M
1858 pIOmpL steps are taken TO narnOnlZe the
conflicting elements Of the party, we stand in
the greatest danger Of losing the State and
remittlng 1t to the same men from whose
hands IT has been but recently rescued. We
beg to remind those who think like Mr. Rlan-
chard that the election Of 1876, upon Wh;akh bile
asseff11ionasassAaasshasea, proved nothing more
conclusivelV than that Nichols could not
have been elected without the Democratic
vote OF New Orleans, whose majority of
10000 elected him by but 5000.
We have not taken into account the serious
differences which the Convention has devel-
oped. and must leave for future adjustment
the debt question. for example. We believe
that al these Issues will be satisfactorily adj