Year: 1879

priations for the repair of the State
House and for the transfer of the ar
chives of the State to Baton Rouge;
and the City Council of Baton Rouge
is hereby authorized to issue certificates
of Indebtedness, in such manner and
form to cover the subscription of $35,s
600, rendered by the citizens and City
Council of said city to aid in repairing
the Capitol in said city; provided, the
city of Baton Rouge shall pay into the
State Treasury said amount of $780, 900
before the contract for repairs of the
State House be finally closed.


The Picayune reports the following
debate on the above Article:


Mr.. Todd, chairman ofthe committee,
in moving the adoption of the second
article, remarked that he thought the
committee consulted tho wishes of the
people in advising that tho capital
should be removed to Baton Rouge.
Under the new constitution the saia-
ries of State officers had been so re-
duced as would make it almost impos-
sible for them to live in New Orleans.


Mr.. Forman moved to strike out
Baton Rouge and the balance of the
article and to insert New Orleans.


Mr.. Forlnan said that New Orleans
was the commercial as we'll as the po-
litical capital of the State. 1t was
more central than Baton Rouge owing
to its great accessibility; all steamboats,
and railroads convcrged at this point.
The expense of removing the capital
was so great the State in her impov-
erished condition could not stand the
expense. AS for the allegation that
members OF the Legislature were more
exposed to corrupting influences in
New Orleans than they would be in
Baton Rouge, the speaker said that if a
man was naturally corrupt it mattered
little where he lived; he would always
find an opportunity to do wrong. On
the other hand, If he was a pure
man, the influences of Now Orleans
would not tempt him.


Mr.. Jastremski delivered a lengthy
speech in opposition to the amend
| ment. He gave a history of the man.
ner in which the capital was brought
down from Baton Rouge to New Or
leans, and he claimed that il was done
| as means to preserve the Radical
Government by the aid of the Federal
| army and navy. He gave some fig
ures to show the cost of removing the
capital. The building at Baton Rouge
| when originally built, cost 1865, 200;
the grounds were worth $25,OOO; the
iron fence was in a perfect state of
preservation and was worth $4,000.
According to estimate furnished it
| would not cost more than 500, 700 to
put the building in perfect repair. OF
this amount the people of Baton Rouge
| would subscribe 1886, 900, leaving only
$65, 900 to be expended by the State.
The building in which the Convention
is now sitting is owned by the State,
and could be sold for more than the
c1-S ~
ed that the merchants of New Orleans
wanted the capital removed, because
so long AS the Legislature sat in this
city it would be disturbed by great po-
Iitical movements, which seriously
damaged the business of the city. He
contended that by the building of num-
erous railroads now projected, Baton
Rouge would ultimately be as accessi-
| BILE as New Orleans. He disclaimcd
| any hostility to New Orleans, but he
thought it was only an act of justice to
the State and to the constituency he
represented to have the capital re-
moved.


Mr.. King followed in support of the
amendment. He alluded to tho great
sacrifices which New Orleans had made
! in tho last ten years to defeat the Rad
ical power, and thought that gratitude
| demands the capital should not be re-
moved from her limits. He pointed
out that New Orleans was possessed of
an active and vigilant press, which
watched every act of the Government
with an argus eye and exposed any
scheme of corruption that may be con-
cocted. On the contrary, in Baton


Rouge there was no press to speak Of,
there being only two papers in tho lat


ter city, and these did not have 4 circu-
lation outside of the parish. He said
that he had been told by men we'll


versed in ante war history that Baton


Rouge was particularly we'll adapted to
the concoction and passage of jobs OF
corruption.


Mr.. Davidson spoke earnestly in ad-
| vocacy of Baton Rouge, on the ground


that purer air and better living could


be obtained there than in New Or


leans.


Mr.. Breaux gave some facts tending
to show that New Orleans was more


suitable for q capital than Baton Rouge.


Mr.. Chaffc opposed the removal on
the ground that it was too expensive.
The States share would amount to


$4,000 and it was not likely that the
present State House could be sold for


any such figure. He thought that as


the State had now a State House,


which was paid for, it would be folly


to incur unnecessary expenses, such as


would result from the removal