The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-14
THE DEBT DISCUSSION.

For the past several days the discussion OF
the reports Of the Committee on State Debt
has been confined almost entirely to the legal
aspect OF the subject This discussion has
been most able and learned, and the different
speakers have shown themselves laborious
and conscientious as well as ingenious and
learned Ii the presentation of their individual
views. Nevertheless, after conceding that
the disputants have all been learned, able,
laborious and conscientious, we are forced In
the end to deprecate the whole OF this legal
augmentation, from beginning to end.
The DEMOCRAT has dealt fairly, and more
generously with both Sides and has given
the fullest reports Of their speeches. and we,
therefore, claim the right TO express candid
opinion, even though 1t be q critical one We
hope that the end Of this legal discussion has
been reached. The impression II has made
has been unfavorable to an adjustment. It
has not served 10 bring Us single step nearer
to the merits Of this question. On the con-
trary It has, we fear. aroused temper which
has only tended to prevent, what the DEMO
Graf has always striven for, an amicable
adjustment OF this most vexatious question
on the principles Of even justice and public
policy.
The settlement Of this question does not
belong to the courts, and the bubbles and
strict interpretations Of lawyers are out OF
keeping with the magnitude Of the issue and
the occasion. 1t Is matter for statesmen,
matter Of public policy and BY no refine
ment, or learning, or elaboration. can 1t be
made anything else Let us, then, have an
end Of these legal briefs and pleadings. We
hope that the discussion will proceed, hence
forward, on the higher grounds we have indi-
Gated; now that the legal technicallties have
been exhausted. In short, the Convention
should now get down to the merits Of the
question.
Having perhaps assumed the tone Of q
censor In speaking Of this discussion, we pro-
pose to do even justice to both sides, without
reference to our own convictions Looking at
the question In this spirit, we do not hesitate
to attribute to the advocates Of the majority
report the responsibility for this useless, and
even harmful, legal discussion. The lower
plane upon which this battle has been fought
was chosen by them. They had the choice Of
positions, and they selected the lower, the
narrower one Of legal technicality, strict
construction and case authority. The advo-
Gates OF the majority report may or may
not have obtained an advantage, but II this
was their sole aspiration, it was most TN
fortunate one. It Is true that they provoked
replies from the other side that may be re-
garded as extravagant; but we have reason
to know that the very men who made these
replies upon the legal points did 50 merely
because they could not decline to meet the adj
vocates Of the majority report on their own
ground. These gentlemen had thrown down
the gauge and the other side could but
take It up. We also have reason to be-
lieve that. among all the gentlemen who
have spoken In opposition to the ma
jority report, there is not one who does not
believe that this Is 9 great question Of public
policy, or who Is not willing to discuss and
adjust 1t upon that standpoint, believing that
mere quibbling can excuse or palliate moth
Ing, while a great deal might be demanded
and ought to be conceded on the grounds 81
this peoples necessity. We. therefore, sug-
gest that, II the lawyers are through, the dis
cussion be taken up by the clear-headed men
OF the Convention, be they professional gen
tlemen or not, who, free from the trammels
Of technicality. are capable Of giving it an al
together different tone; one better calculated
to reconcile the peoples necessities with the
public faith.