The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-13

the legal authority. We are not the body e
do that, There 70 no authority In law K
maints,in ". This is what Mr.. Cooley says Ii
regard to the power Of convention In matters
Of Legislation, chapter 8, section 80:
"tn accordance with universal practice an6
from the very necessity of the case, amend
ments to mi existing constitution, or entire
sevisioHs OF it, must be prepared and matureC
by some body Of representatives chosen fol
the parpose. 1t ID obviously impossible
for. the whole people to meet, prepare
and discuss the proposed alterations, and
there seems to be no feasible mode by. Wh1ef
an expression Of their will can be, obtained
except by asking 1t upon the single point o.
tnsentatlves. unless specially clothed with
power for that purpose by the people Wlier
choosing them, can rightfully take detinitive
action upon amendments or reylalons; they
ust submit the result OF their deliberations
W The peOple-whO alone are competent to eH
erclse the powers Of sovereignty III framing
the fundamental law-for ratification or re-
lection. The constitutional convention Is thu
representative OF sovereignty only In very
qualifled sense, and for the specific purpose
ana with the restricted authority to put liz
proper form the questions of amendment upor
which the people are topass: but the changes
In the fundamental law Of the State must be
ENACTED by the people themselves.
See, upon this subject, Jameson on the con-
stitutional convention, SIS 415-4ls and 479- $50
This work is so complete and satisfactory in
Jus treatment OF the general subject, as to
leave little to be said by one who shall after
ward attempt to cover the same ground
Where convention to frame amendments to
the constitution is sitting under Legislative
act from which all Its authority is derived,
the submission OF Its labors to vote Of the
people IN manner different from that pre-
scrlbed BY The act is nugatory. Wells vs..
Balm, 20 Penn. ST. 80. Such convention has
nc. Inherent rights; 1t has delegated powers
wit 20
Appeal, 70 Penn. st. 30. Compare Loomis VS..
jackson, . w Va. G13, 7Og. The Supreme
Court OF Missouri have expressed the opinion
that u was competent for convention to put
ting It to the people. State VS.. Neal. AZ Mo.
liz But this was obiter."
That In substance maintains my PROPOSE
tton- InJameson the doctrine Ia held more at
length do not want to read 1t, Dig do not
wish TO tire the Convention. | hold therefore
that according to these authorities, and ac-
cording to the nature Of the case and the
principles of our government, this Convention
y sovereign only In the qualified sense Of
training the organic law aud submitting it
back to the people. That Ia our a1l-
thority, and II 1t be not submitted to
the people It is nugatory, and the Con-
vention has no inherent right. IT has dele
gated authority, and when you come to
measure that authority you must measure 1t
by the terms OF the grant In which It il con-
ls. There can be no other In the nature of the
case, Now this Convention, Ii It be 50 dis
posed, might pass all ordinance to-day eject
ing the present Supreme Court from author
Ivy and installing another Ii this Conven-
ton were to have one oil Its members in
by one Of these very Industrious
peelers, who are constantly ordering men,
bers Of the Convention, when they assemble
on the corners OF the streets to view the beau
\ y, y, ladies' of New Orleans to move on; If
this Convention was to incarcel ate this peeler
and he was TO sue out q writ of habeas corpus.
how would the court decide2 And even the
peeler can make these sovereigns move on.
Where does this sovereignty reside? We
have 134 delegates. Has each delegate the
one hundred and thirty-fourth part of that
mysterious sovereignty? | have never had
IN imperial crown offered to me. / would
not reject IT, unless it came In this question
ible shape. would not want d fragmentary
crown. Ii the peelerS were to put the whole
y this Convention In the calaboose, where
would be our sovereignty then2 I think these
yermane to the issue. Ii we cannot do these
small things, how In the name Of heaven can
+ % cDntended that we can absorb all the
'ower Of this august State Of Louisiana.
NOW, ! Will pass to another point will
'ention has authority to Investigate this
ubJect, outside Of the ordinary methods of
procedure In courts Of law and BY its ipae
l,ra, by Its despotic finding, seeks to de-
'tr9y t mans property. ! say that, the
't tate OF Louisiana is sstopped from that in
JURY, and say that It Is estopped and pre-
luded by reason Of the act of 1874 and the
constitutional amendments Of 1875 Now, sir.
ct ~. look into that This act Of 1874 was
assed under what we term the Kellogg re-
,ime, and the constitutional amendment
which purports to have been ratified was
lso ratified under that regime. I think 1t |
emonstrable. from the nature of our govern |
lent, that this State Is bound by these acts. |
will here say that there Is no man In Lou
slana, and yield TO none, who has been more
Dnsistent and answering In his fidelity and |
1yalty TO what we consider the interests
our people. There has been no man In this |
tate who has more unswervingly-a great |
lany may have been more successful--but
one have more unswervingIy battled against |
ne, rule OF this land by a band of strangers.
vt, sir, while have this to say, / have this
Their to say, that cannot voluntarily. with
" Instincts as a lawyer, tear down the whole
lid fabric OF society, and introduce per-
ct reign of chaos.
What is the nature Of our government
his state OF Louisiana fs @ sovereign, but the
ate OF Louisiana is subordinate sovereign.
heIe is paramount sovereignty that re-
des IN the constitutions and laws and trent
OF the United States. Sir, we know that
lat sovereignty Is able to enforce its DEGREES;
0 know from bloody experience. from a war, ]
aC shook this whole continent, that that
'wer is competent to enforce it's DEGREES.
Now, sir, that power Is the supreme power
the land-the constitution and laws of the
nited States, and the very Identical case OF
'mestlc broil and intarnecine war in the
ates has been provided for in the constitu-
N 81 the United States In explicit terms. .
1e fourth paragraph OF the fourth section ,
c1ares that the United States shall guar i
tee to each State Republican form Of gov {
nment and shall protect each one against :
vasion and domestic violence. That, sir, is .
clause In the. constitution that settles the ]
estion Of the validity Of the act Of !
a. Have the gentlemen forgotten that +
at iron man Of destiny, with the whole i
wer Of the Federal government at his 4
ok. recognized the Kellogg govern I
mt Was not that a recognition y
der the law and authority vested
him by the constitution Of the United :
ates? Necessarily 30; and that made 1t a +
Jaxe government---not de 5asre govern 4
mt In the popular sense-I am not speaking i i
revolution am speaking Of a de ,jure gov Il
lment under the constitution and under the -
Y. Sir, so long as we are living under the (
lstltution and law we must obey both, and =
g absolutely absurd for us to rise 10 and -
Z that we can ignore the acts of the Exeet1- a.