The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-06-11
CHAOS CONE AGAIN.

CHAOS COME AGAIN.
The position taken BY MI. Lott yesterday
in his speech before the Convention ia regard
to the nature Of the governments which have
existed In this State since 1868, is the boldest
statement that has yet been made OF the
views Of those persons who assert their abso-
lutte responsibility and incapacity to be-
queath to the people any obligations what
ever.
| Mr. Lott took no halfway position. The
| constitution Of 1885, according to his argu-
ment, Is the fundamental organism. the rule
OF conduct, Of the Nichols administration
just as it was OF the Warmoth and Kellogg
administrations. They all stand exactly upon
the same foundation, and the Nichols admin
istration and its acts are no more valid or
binding than those Of Its predecessors. He
claims that the constitution Of 1868 was not
established by the people, and for that rea-
son the government established by 1t was
merely de facto government which he de-
fined to be government Of force. possessed
Of no power except to preserve society,
and whose authority and capacity to
CEBdUo OULl8dLiOL4S NUoO1AGCly COd6o0 Will Glo
termination Of their ability to enforce them.
Hence, he argued, 1t matters not what legis-
lation or official act any government organ
lied under the constitution OF 1868 may have
contaminated In regard to the State debt, all
these governments being de facto, and there
fore incapable OF creating lasting and valid
obligations; none of their acts, legislative or
judicial, are binding on the people Of this
State. When the people adopted the amend
ment Of 1874, II they ever adopted
it at all, they merely added another provision
to the de facto constitution of 1868, and that
amendment Is entitled to no more respect
than the original body Of that instrument
50, also, when thepeople elected the Nichols
administration in 1876, they merely "cap-
tured" and obtained control Of the de fact0
government. Bysubmitting to the constitu-
ton Of 1868 and acquiescing In the govern
ments instituted under it, the people have
never SO ratified that instrument as to impart
de .jure character to the governments or
ganized under It, but have merely been abid-
ing their opportunity to establish rightful
government, legal governme based on the
will Of the people.
This, as we understand 1t, Is the position
taken by Mr.. Lott, and if we have ia any
respect misstated him, 1t has been done unin-
tentionally. If this doctrine be true, there
has not been performed single official act
in the State Of Louisiana since 1861 not a
single manifestation Of the executive or leg
isIative power, not a judgment Of the courts,
except such as were necessary to the pres
ervation Of the peace and order OF society,
which Is not an absolute nullity. The whole
Of the past, every assertion Of the autonomy
of the State during all this period Is thrust
upon us In one chaotic mass, to be ripped up
and questioned and overturned
But, granting that Mr.. Lofts theories are
incontroverHble, then, we ask, what good
purpose can they be made to subserve !?
While his reasoning Is very vigorous, we do
not see that 1t gets us any nearer to the solu-
ton Of the debt problem. The absolute power
! OF the Convention under the Federal constitu-
ton, and we know Of no other restriction
upon this body to adjust the debt, even to abso-
lutely repudiateit, Is very generally conceded.
Certainly no legal argument was necessary to
convince the Convention itself of its authority
In this respect. Then why all this elaboration
Of law and technicality? 1t the Convention
have the power to disregard the law as estab-
Ished by previous governments; If there be
no power on earth to compel 1t to respect
that law, what object can there be In proving
that the acts OF previous administrations were
or we're not legally binding?
The question yet remains, after all this re-
filming and logic, whether the people Of Louis
lana have not, by acquiescence, incurred GER
tain moral obligations which they are bound
BY, and which, as great matter Of public
policy, they cannot utterly disregard, and
this is precisely the question which Mr.. Lott
had nothing to say about.